Hi Dhaval,
How does this patch (on top of todays sched-devel.git) work for you?
It keeps my laptop nice and spiffy when I run
let i=0; while [ $i -lt 100 ]; do let i+=1; while :; do :; done & done
under a third user (nobody). This generates huge latencies for the nobody
user (up to 1.6s) but r
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:04:44PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> I know I am missing something, but aren't we trying to reduce latencies
> here?
I guess Peter is referring to the latency in seeing fairness results. In
other words, with single rq approach, you may require more time for the groups
t
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 22:07 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:04:44PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > On the same lines, I cant understand how we can be seeing 700ms latency
> > > > (below) unless we had: large number of active groups/users and large
> > > > number of
>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:04:44PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > On the same lines, I cant understand how we can be seeing 700ms latency
> > > (below) unless we had: large number of active groups/users and large
> > > number of
> > > tasks within each group/user.
> >
> > All I can say it that
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:51:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 08:30 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Yes, latency isolation is the one thing I had to sacrifice in order to
> > > get the normal lat
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 08:30 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yes, latency isolation is the one thing I had to sacrifice in order to
> > get the normal latencies under control.
>
> Hi Peter,
> I don't have easy solution in
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Yes, latency isolation is the one thing I had to sacrifice in order to
> get the normal latencies under control.
Hi Peter,
I don't have easy solution in mind either to meet both fairness
and latency goals in a acceptable way
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 00:23 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> I've been running the latest sched-git through some tests. Here is
> essentially what I am doing,
>
> 1. Mount the control group
> 2. Create 3-4 groups
> 3. Start kernbench inside each group
> 4. Run cpu hogs in each group
>
Hi Ingo,
I've been running the latest sched-git through some tests. Here is
essentially what I am doing,
1. Mount the control group
2. Create 3-4 groups
3. Start kernbench inside each group
4. Run cpu hogs in each group
Essentially the idea is to see how the system responds under extreme CPU
loa
9 matches
Mail list logo
