RE: Network slowdown due to CFS

[David Schwartz]

> > I think the real fix would be for iperf to use blocking network IO
> > though, or maybe to use a POSIX mutex or POSIX semaphores.
>
> So it's definitely not a bug in the kernel, only in iperf?

Martin:

Actually, in this case I think iperf is doing the right thing (though not
the best thing) and the kernel is doing the wrong thing. It's calling
'sched_yield' to ensure that every other thread gets a chance to run before
the current thread runs again. CFS is not doing that, allowing the yielding
thread to hog the CPU to the exclusion of the other threads. (It can allow
the yielding thread to hog the CPU, of course, just not to the exclusion of
other threads.)

It's still better to use some kind of rational synchronization primitive
(like mutex/sempahore) so that the other threads can tell you when there's
something for you to do. It's still better to use blocking network IO, so
the kernel will let you know exactly when to try I/O and your dynamic
priority can rise.

Ingo:

Can you clarify what CFS' current default sched_yield implementation is and
what setting sched_compat_yield to 1 does? Which way do we get the right
semantics (all threads of equal static priority are scheduled, with some
possible SMP fuzziness, before this thread is scheduled again)?

DS


-
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/