From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: interactive task starvation
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:19:49 +1100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Cc: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       bugsplatter@gmail.com
References: <1142592375.7895.43.camel@homer> <200603220053.53595.kernel@kolivas.org> <1142950651.7807.95.camel@homer>
In-Reply-To: <1142950651.7807.95.camel@homer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200603220119.50331.kernel@kolivas.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1097
Lines: 26

On Wednesday 22 March 2006 01:17, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 00:53 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > The yardstick for changes is now the speed of 'ls' scrolling in the
> > console. Where exactly are those extra cycles going I wonder? Do you
> > think the scheduler somehow makes the cpu idle doing nothing in that
> > timespace? Clearly that's not true, and userspace is making something
> > spin unnecessarily, but we're gonna fix that by modifying the
> > scheduler.... sigh
>
> *Blink*
>
> Are you having a bad hair day??

My hair is approximately 3mm long so it's kinda hard for that to happen. 

What you're fixing with unfairness is worth pursuing. The 'ls' issue just 
blows my mind though for reasons I've just said. Where are the magic cycles 
going when nothing else is running that make it take ten times longer?

Cheers,
Con
-
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/