mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@sgi.com>,
	marcelo@connectiva.com.br.munich.sgi.com, rml@tech9.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:30:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DED4CA4.5B9A20EA@digeo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021204000618.GG11730@dualathlon.random>

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> ...
> >
> > The difference is unlikely to be noticed by many.  (But it should be
> > _better_ than stock 2.4)
> 
> it can't be better in SMP because due its scalability feature we
> completely lose track of the global smp and we only can keep track of
> the single per-cpu queue. Was it on SMP or UP?

The problem with the "interactivity estimator" was observed on
dual CPU.  It has almost vanished in 2.4.20aa1 and I don't think
it needs any more attention.

(BTW: it is not possible to trigger this problem when the background
load is just one or more busywaits.  It has to be a compilation.  It
could be something to do with all the short-lived processes, or gcc -pipe)

> ...
> > With a `make -j1' running:
> >
> > - Normal O(1) behaviour in StarOffice 5.2 is 15-30 second delays between
> >   actions.
> >
> > - With 2.4.20aa1, typing into a text document typically had a 2-3 character
> >   delay.
> >
> > - With the standard 2.4 scheduler the delay is zero characters.
> 
> again, I guess that's SMP and that's quite a pain to fix it to be 100%
> equivalent to 2.4 without hurting scalability.

This problem is the "changed sched_yield semantics".  It was actually
tested on uniprocessor.  The difference between 2.4 and 2.4-aa is
still noticeable here, but it is not a terrible problem now.

> ..
> 
> Overall I don't see any showstopper with openoffice (or staroffice) on
> my version of the o1 scheduler.

I'd agree that it's not a showstopper.  It's in the "could be improved
a bit sometime" department.

Post-2.4, well, spinning on sched_yield() is a silly way to implement
a graphical application and I don't believe we need to struggle to
support such a thing.

The Open Group say

     The sched_yield() function shall force the running thread to relinquish
     the processor until it again becomes the head of its thread list. It
     takes no arguments.

That's a bit vague, but it does tend to imply that a yield could
relinquish the CPU for a very long time.

  reply	other threads:[~2002-12-04  0:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-12-03  0:26 Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-12-02 18:57   ` Robert Love
2002-12-03  0:51   ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:50 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-12-02 18:50   ` Adrian Bunk
2002-12-02 19:12     ` Robert Love
2002-12-02 19:30   ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-02 19:50     ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-03 20:49       ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-03 21:09         ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-12-04  0:09           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  0:06         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  0:30           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-12-04  0:42             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  1:03               ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-04  9:25                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-04  1:14               ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-04  1:21                 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-12-04  2:14                   ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-06 18:11                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-12-08 13:23     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-12-08 19:56       ` Andrew Morton
2002-12-09 20:13         ` Ingo Molnar
2002-12-03  1:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 18:59     ` Robert Love
2002-12-02 22:47     ` Alan Cox
2002-12-02 22:38       ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 22:41         ` Robert Love
2002-12-07 16:55           ` bill davidsen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-13 23:08 Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-13 21:34 ` Adrian Bunk
2002-12-14  4:55   ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-09 20:19 kernel
2002-12-09  3:02 Jim Houston
2002-10-01 23:03 Robert Love
2002-10-02 13:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-02 15:00   ` Robert Love
2002-11-05  3:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-11-06 15:32   ` Adrian Bunk
2002-11-07 21:42     ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:12   ` Mikael Pettersson
2002-12-03  0:51     ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-12-02 17:47       ` Mikael Pettersson
2002-12-02 19:10         ` Robert Love

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3DED4CA4.5B9A20EA@digeo.com \
    --to=akpm@digeo.com \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcelo@connectiva.com.br.munich.sgi.com \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome