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.
next prev parent 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