On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 11:20 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 09/04/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 21:34 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 19:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > I lowered the time to 500
On 09/04/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 21:34 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 19:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > I lowered the time to 500us, and ran at nice -10.. it starves tenpercent
> > > here every time. (ra
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 21:34 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 19:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > I lowered the time to 500us, and ran at nice -10.. it starves tenpercent
> > > here every time. (ran as taskset -c 1 nice -n -10 ./fairtest) The
> > > star
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 02:23 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > [...]
> > Well, it's a late hour, so maybe I'm missing something... but it does
> > look to be HZ and "will run" time interval related issue. Like
> > described in (*). Or maybe we both observe similar situations but have
> > different
[...]
Well, it's a late hour, so maybe I'm missing something... but it does
look to be HZ and "will run" time interval related issue. Like
described in (*). Or maybe we both observe similar situations but have
different reasons behind them.
I meant that account_user_time() is also called from ti
On 08/04/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 19:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I lowered the time to 500us, and ran at nice -10.. it starves tenpercent
> here every time. (ran as taskset -c 1 nice -n -10 ./fairtest) The
> starving 10% duty cycle task has trou
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 19:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I lowered the time to 500us, and ran at nice -10.. it starves tenpercent
> > here every time. (ran as taskset -c 1 nice -n -10 ./fairtest) The
> > starving 10% duty cycle task has trouble getting 1% CPU.
>
> Hmm.
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 19:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I lowered the time to 500us, and ran at nice -10.. it starves tenpercent
> here every time. (ran as taskset -c 1 nice -n -10 ./fairtest) The
> starving 10% duty cycle task has trouble getting 1% CPU.
Hmm. Playing with it some more toda
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 18:20 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> xx.c
>
> #include
> #include
>
> #define max(a,b) ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))
> #define min(a,b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b))
>
> int main(void)
> {
> struct timeval then, now;
> struct timespec t = {0, 1000}, r;
>
> for(;;) {
>
On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 11:24 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Where are we at with staircase anyway? Is it looking like a 2.6.22
> > thing? I don't personally think we've yet seen enough serious
> > performance testing to permit a merge, apart from other
10 matches
Mail list logo
