From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757104AbZEEHwK (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 03:52:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755433AbZEEHvh (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 03:51:37 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:35145 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754636AbZEEHvg (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 03:51:36 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18rFPB7HUQrIILTMte85+HSRqiUim/lvy0eGaorsH OiE4JEZtuB0tLf Subject: Re: CFS not suitable for desktop computers From: Mike Galbraith To: Chris Friesen Cc: Nico =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=FCmann?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1241502128.5505.62.camel@marge.simson.net> References: <49FDEFD1.8020608@nico22.de> <1241424835.26855.102.camel@marge.simson.net> <49FF06D0.80109@nico22.de> <49FF57AC.7070104@nortel.com> <1241502128.5505.62.camel@marge.simson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:51:32 +0200 Message-Id: <1241509892.5531.36.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.5600000000000001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 07:42 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 15:01 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > > Nico Schümann wrote: > > > Thank you Ray Lee and Mike Galbraith for your responses, I ran the > > > script and attached its gathered information. > > > > > > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > >> How hard is hard? Can you describe the loads you're having trouble > > >> with, and the hardware you're running them on? > > >> > > >> > > > I could reproduce "hard" load by just compiling the linux kernel, make > > > -j3 while reading mails with Thunderbird, which is not that hard > > > foreground load. Thunderbird starts reacting really slowly while compiling. > > > > I wonder if this could be related to I/O rather than the task scheduler > > proper. > > That's something I was wondering as well, particularly when I noticed > he's using data=journal and anticipatory io-scheduler. Well, I offlined 3 of 4 cores, set data=journal, and throttled down to 1.6GHz to load test a bit, and it didn't make any difference with _Evolution_ and a make -j3 running. Evolution remained responsive. I can feel the load though. X here is unaccelerated (damn nvidia), so despite heftier core (Q6600), CPU usage while browsing mail is pretty similar to Nico's data, often heavier. Behavior I see here isn't bad at all.. unless I move a window that is, X then becomes a major oinker, so I feel every bit of load. That's unpleasant, but expected. I have an old P4 lying about (has X candy). I'll update it and try some UP testing. Can't test Thunderbird though. -Mike