Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20030910124128.01c40cc0@pop.gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:47:39 +0200
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: Priority Inversion in Scheduling
Cc: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>, John Yau <jyau_kernel_dev@hotmail.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <3F5EEEDA.7070406@cyberone.com.au>
References: <LAW10-OE63Zc1WPsAVe0000ab93@hotmail.com>
 <3F5E6F15.6040507@cyberone.com.au>
 <6.0.0.22.0.20030910062610.01cfacd8@pop.gmx.net>
 <20030910053549.GE28279@matchmail.com>
 <6.0.0.22.0.20030910074121.01c8a220@pop.gmx.net>
 <3F5EEEDA.7070406@cyberone.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 765
Lines: 19

At 11:28 AM 9/10/2003, Nick Piggin wrote:

>Sounds interesting. I my scheduler doesn't have any inversion or
>starvation issues that I know of without backboost though. I'd like to
>know if you find any.

I haven't been able to stimulate inversion, or found any terminal 
starvation with your mods.  The only things I can see is array switch 
latency making X choppy under load, and the cpu distribution differences 
shown by contest (and both may have changed considerably since last version 
tested).

         -Mike 

-
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/