Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:24:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Interesting interaction between lguest and CFS
Message-ID: <20070604202405.GA27632@elte.hu>
References: <20070604173710.GR11166@waste.org> <20070604181151.GA1745@elte.hu> <Line.LNX.4.64.0706041613310.13341@d.namei>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Line.LNX.4.64.0706041613310.13341@d.namei>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 939
Lines: 24


* James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > perhaps lguest does something unusual when it idles? Does it fiddle 
> > sched_clock() in any way?
> 
> One of the lguest processes calls nice(2), which seems like a long 
> shot, but also not impossibly related.  (Note that newer patches in 
> the lguest queue remove this, so it'll depend on exactly which patches 
> you have applied).

i've got 2.6.22-rc3-mm1's lguest (with a trivial boot-time crash fix in 
sched_clock that i ran into). But nice(2) should only cause a gentle, 
20% smaller CPU bandwidth to be allocated by CFS to that thread, nothing 
more drastic like user-visible delays.

	Ingo
-
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/