Subject: Re: interactive task starvation
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
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
In-Reply-To: <200603220119.50331.kernel@kolivas.org>
References: <1142592375.7895.43.camel@homer>
	 <200603220053.53595.kernel@kolivas.org> <1142950651.7807.95.camel@homer>
	 <200603220119.50331.kernel@kolivas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:28:59 +0100
Message-Id: <1142951339.7807.99.camel@homer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1251
Lines: 29

On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 01:19 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 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?

What I was talking about when I mentioned scrolling was rendering.

	-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/