Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751083AbWC2F4W (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:56:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751084AbWC2F4W (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:56:22 -0500 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.192]:54450 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751083AbWC2F4V convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:56:21 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fKv6P5jmf/FFYLIz5PL4SKgsFbD7sZz/smMZek6YQHqgKVewVELGaHL+8S4qfCdeiFGZESWRMy2o/ibhMOQHu5f4irWu5MWtmo0LwnOKRHlaIkcBVEcbAnyonfHEAQBf/Eg2cv/Pp75BcRN8sFyLAYsdsAnFawLUUsQFwwmmd+Y= Message-ID: <2c0942db0603282156x468f4246nae414b2a853668dc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:56:20 -0800 From: "Ray Lee" Reply-To: ray-gmail@madrabbit.org To: "Lee Revell" Subject: Re: interactive task starvation Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Willy Tarreau" , "Con Kolivas" , "Mike Galbraith" , lkml , "Andrew Morton" , bugsplatter@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1143601277.3330.2.camel@mindpipe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <1142592375.7895.43.camel@homer> <200603220119.50331.kernel@kolivas.org> <1142951339.7807.99.camel@homer> <200603220130.34424.kernel@kolivas.org> <20060321143240.GA310@elte.hu> <20060321144410.GE26171@w.ods.org> <20060321145202.GA3268@elte.hu> <1143601277.3330.2.camel@mindpipe> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1655 Lines: 35 On 3/28/06, Lee Revell wrote: > Can you explain why terminal output ping-pongs back and forth between > taking a certain amount of time, and approximately 10x longer? [...] > Why does it ping-pong between taking ~0.08s and ~0.75s like that? The > behavior is completely reproducible. Does the scheduler have any concept of dependent tasks? (If so, hit and move on.) If not, then the producer and consumer will be scheduled randomly w/r/t each other, right? Sometimes producer then consumer, sometimes vice versa. If so, the ping pong should be half of the time slow, half of the time fast (+/- sqrt(N)), and the slow time should scale directly with the number of tasks running on the system. Do any of the above WAGs match what you see? If so, then perhaps it's random just due to the order in which the tasks get initially scheduled (dmesg vs ssh, or dmesg vs xterm vs X -- er, though I guess in that latter case there's really three separate timings that you'd get back, as the triple set of tasks could be in one of six orderings, one fast, one slow, and four equally mixed between the two). I wonder if on a pipe write, moving the reader to be right after the writer in the list would even that out. (But only on cases where the reader didn't just run -- wouldn't want a back and forth conversation to starve everyone else...) But like I said, just a WAG. Ray - 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/