Re: Scheduler fairness problem on 2.6 series (Attn: Nick Pigginand others)

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 20:21, Peter Williams wrote:
> spaminos-ker@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > --- Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >     -----------------
> >  => started at: kernel_fpu_begin+0x21/0x60
> >  => ended at:   _mmx_memcpy+0x131/0x180
> > =======>
> > 00000001 0.000ms (+0.000ms): kernel_fpu_begin (_mmx_memcpy)
> > 00000001 0.730ms (+0.730ms): sub_preempt_count (_mmx_memcpy)
> > 00000001 0.730ms (+0.000ms): _mmx_memcpy (check_preempt_timing)
> > 00000001 0.730ms (+0.000ms): kernel_fpu_begin (_mmx_memcpy)
> > 
> 
> As far as I can see sub_preempt_count() is part of the latency measuring 
> component of the voluntary preempt patch so, like you, I'm not sure 
> whether this report makes any sense.

Is this an SMP machine?  There were problems with that version of the
voluntary preemption patches on SMP.  The latest version, Q3, should fix
these.

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/