Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes

[Mike Galbraith]

On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 17:12 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Dunno about the IO bits, but..
> >  
> > The problem with the C++ testcases seems to be wake_up_all() plunking a 
> > genuine thundering herd onto runqueues.  The sleeper fairness logic 
> > places the entire herd left of min_vruntime, meaning N*sched_latency 
> > pain for the poor sods who are setting the runqueue pace.
> 
> 100 wakeup pairs that all run and ping-pong between each other?
> 
> That creates 200 tasks with an average system load of 100.0, on a 
> dual-core system. Is that a fair representation of some real workload, or 
> just an unrealistic "gee, look, given enough tasks running I can overload 
> the system _this bad_" example?

Looks contrived to me, but it is a hole.  Dang sleepers, can't live with
'em can't live without 'em.

	-Mike

--
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/