Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <vatsa@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <mingo@...>, <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <pj@...>, Balbir Singh <balbir@...>, <aneesh.kumar@...>, <dhaval@...>
Date: Monday, June 2, 2008 - 4:03 pm

Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:


Okay, thanks.



It was set to 105 initially.  I later reproduced the problem with 102. 
For example, the following was with 102, with three tasks created in the 
sys class.  Based on the runtime, pid 2499 has been getting a cpu all to 
itself for over a minute.

  2499 cfriesen  20   0  3800  392  336 R 99.8  0.0   1:05.85 cat
  2496 cfriesen  20   0  3800  392  336 R 50.0  0.0   0:32.95 cat
  2498 cfriesen  20   0  3800  392  336 R 50.0  0.0   0:32.97 cat

The next run was much better, with sub-second fairness after a minute.

  2505 cfriesen  20   0  3800  392  336 R 68.2  0.0   1:00.32 cat
  2506 cfriesen  20   0  3800  392  336 R 66.9  0.0   0:59.85 cat
  2503 cfriesen  20   0  3800  392  336 R 64.2  0.0   1:00.21 cat

The lack of predictability is disturbing, as it implies some sensitivity 
to the specific test conditions.


No problem.  It's still far superior than the SMP performance of CKRM,
which is what we're currently using (although heavily modified).

Chris

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
fair group scheduler not so fair?, Chris Friesen, (Wed May 21, 7:59 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Tue May 27, 1:28 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Tue May 27, 1:15 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Chris Friesen, (Tue May 27, 2:13 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Wed May 28, 12:33 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Chris Friesen, (Wed May 28, 2:35 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Thu May 29, 12:46 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Chris Friesen, (Thu May 29, 5:30 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Fri May 30, 7:36 am)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Chris Friesen, (Mon Jun 2, 4:03 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Dhaval Giani, (Fri May 30, 2:43 am)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Fri May 30, 6:21 am)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Thu May 29, 12:47 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Wed May 28, 10:50 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Dhaval Giani, (Wed May 28, 2:47 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu May 22, 2:56 am)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Chris Friesen, (Thu May 22, 4:02 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu May 22, 4:07 pm)
RE: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Li, Tong N, (Thu May 22, 4:18 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Fri May 23, 5:42 am)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Peter Zijlstra, (Fri May 23, 5:39 am)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Fri May 23, 6:19 am)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Peter Zijlstra, (Fri May 23, 6:16 am)
RE: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu May 22, 5:13 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Chris Friesen, (Thu May 22, 8:17 pm)
Re: fair group scheduler not so fair?, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, (Fri May 23, 3:44 am)