From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965458AbXCMIXJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:23:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965478AbXCMIXI (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:23:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:53441 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965458AbXCMIXG (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:23:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:22:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Con Kolivas Cc: Mike Galbraith , linux kernel mailing list , ck list , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 Message-ID: <20070313082251.GA26604@elte.hu> References: <200703111457.17624.kernel@kolivas.org> <8cd998d50703121551u44ea3d85g2541503373f461f4@mail.gmail.com> <1173762639.7944.45.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <200703131653.39415.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703131653.39415.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Con Kolivas wrote: > > It's not "offensive" to me, it is a behavioral regression. The > > situation as we speak is that you can run cpu intensive tasks while > > watching eye-candy. With RSDL, you can't, you feel the > > non-interactive load instantly. Doesn't the fact that you're asking > > me to lower my expectations tell you that I just might have a point? > > Yet looking at the mainline scheduler code, nice 5 tasks are also > supposed to get 75% cpu compared to nice 0 tasks, however I cannot > seem to get 75% cpu with a fully cpu bound task in the presence of an > interactive task. [...] i'm sorry, but your argument seems to be negated. We of course have no problem with interactive tasks stealing CPU time from CPU hogs. The situation Mike found is _the other direction_: that /CPU hogs/ stole from interactive tasks. That's bad and needs to be fixed. Please? Ingo