Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757497AbXJCIQf (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 04:16:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752925AbXJCIQV (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 04:16:21 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:60945 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752210AbXJCIQU (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 04:16:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:16:13 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jarek Poplawski Cc: David Schwartz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Network slowdown due to CFS Message-ID: <20071003081613.GA29904@elte.hu> References: <20071002060607.GA18588@elte.hu> <20071003080224.GB1726@ff.dom.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071003080224.GB1726@ff.dom.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0092] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1493 Lines: 39 * Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > firstly, there's no notion of "timeslices" in CFS. (in CFS tasks > > "earn" a right to the CPU, and that "right" is not sliced in the > > traditional sense) But we tried a conceptually similar thing [...] > > >From kernel/sched_fair.c: > > "/* > * Targeted preemption latency for CPU-bound tasks: > * (default: 20ms, units: nanoseconds) > * > * NOTE: this latency value is not the same as the concept of > * 'timeslice length' - timeslices in CFS are of variable length. > * (to see the precise effective timeslice length of your workload, > * run vmstat and monitor the context-switches field) > ..." > > So, no notion of something, which are(!) of variable length, and which > precise effective timeslice lenght can be seen in nanoseconds? (But > not timeslice!) You should really read and understand the code you are arguing about :-/ In the 2.6.22 scheduler, there was a p->time_slice per task variable that could be manipulated. (Note, in 2.6.22's sched_yield() did not manipulate p->time_slice.) sysctl_sched_latency on the other hand is not something that is per task (it is global) so there is no pending timeslice to be "cleared" as it has been suggested naively. 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/