Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030520AbVLWMwA (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:52:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030521AbVLWMwA (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:52:00 -0500 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:58349 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030520AbVLWMv7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:51:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response From: Trond Myklebust To: Peter Williams Cc: Kyle Moffett , Ingo Molnar , Con Kolivas , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <43ABD639.2060200@bigpond.net.au> References: <43A8EF87.1080108@bigpond.net.au> <1135145341.7910.17.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <43A8F714.4020406@bigpond.net.au> <1135171280.7958.16.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <962C9716-6F84-477B-8B2A-FA771C21CDE8@mac.com> <1135172453.7958.26.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <43AA0EEA.8070205@bigpond.net.au> <1135289282.9769.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <43AB29B8.7050204@bigpond.net.au> <1135292364.9769.58.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1135297525.3685.57.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <43AB69B8.4080707@bigpond.net.au> <1135330757.8167.44.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <43ABD639.2060200@bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:51:02 +0100 Message-Id: <1135342262.8167.143.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.282, required 12, autolearn=disabled, AWL 1.67, FORGED_RCVD_HELO 0.05, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1482 Lines: 32 On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 21:49 +1100, Peter Williams wrote: > No. It is asking whether the NORMAL interruption of this interruptible > sleep will be caused by a human user action such as a keystroke or mouse > action. For the NFS client the answer to that question is unequivically > no. It's not a matter of policy it's a matter of fact. /* * Tasks that have marked their sleep as noninteractive get * woken up without updating their sleep average. (i.e. their * sleep is handled in a priority-neutral manner, no priority * boost and no penalty.) */ This appears to be the only documentation for the TASK_NONINTERACTIVE flag, and I see no mention of human user actions in that comment. The comment rather appears to states that this particular flag is designed to switch between two different scheduling policies. If the flag really is only about identifying sleeps that will involve human user actions, then surely it would be easy to set up a short set of guidelines in Documentation, say, that spell out exactly what the purpose is, and when it should be used. That should be done _before_ one starts charging round converting every instance of TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. Trond - 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/