On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 08:43:05PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:31, Wiktor Wodecki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:18:33PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > That _might_ (add salt) be priorities of kernel threads dropping too low.
> > >
> > > I'm also seeing occasional total stalls under heavy I/O in the order of
> > > 10-12 seconds (even the disk stops). I have no idea if that's something
> > > in mm or the scheduler changes though, as I've yet to do any isolation
> > > and/or tinkering. All I know at this point is that I haven't seen it in
> > > stock yet.
> >
> > I've seen this too while doing a huge nfs transfer from a 2.6 machine to
> > a 2.4 machine (sparc32). Thought it'd be something with the nfs changes
> > which were recently, might be the scheduler, tho. Ah, and it is fully
> > reproducable.
>
> Well I didn't want to post this yet because I'm not sure if it's a good
> workaround yet but it looks like a reasonable compromise, and since you have a
> testcase it will be interesting to see if it addresses it. It's possible that
> a task is being requeued every millisecond, and this is a little smarter. It
> allows cpu hogs to run for 100ms before being round robinned, but shorter for
> interactive tasks. Can you try this O7 which applies on top of O6.1 please:
>
> available here:
> http://kernel.kolivas.org/2.5
sorry, the problem still persists. Aborting the cp takes less time, tho
(about 10 seconds now, before it was about 30 secs). I'm aborting during
a big file, FYI.
>
> and here:
>
> --- linux-2.6.0-test1-mm1/kernel/sched.c 2003-07-17 19:59:16.000000000 +1000
> +++ linux-2.6.0-testck1/kernel/sched.c 2003-07-18 00:10:55.000000000 +1000
> @@ -1310,10 +1310,12 @@ void scheduler_tick(int user_ticks, int
> enqueue_task(p, rq->expired);
> } else
> enqueue_task(p, rq->active);
> - } else if (p->prio < effective_prio(p)){
> + } else if (!((task_timeslice(p) - p->time_slice) %
> + (MIN_TIMESLICE * (MAX_BONUS + 1 - p->sleep_avg * MAX_BONUS / MAX_SLEEP_AVG)))){
> /*
> - * Tasks that have lowered their priority are put to the end
> - * of the active array with their remaining timeslice
> + * Running tasks get requeued with their remaining timeslice
> + * after a period proportional to how cpu intensive they are to
> + * minimise the duration one interactive task can starve another
> */
> dequeue_task(p, rq->active);
> set_tsk_need_resched(p);
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- Regards,Wiktor Wodecki
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:33 EST