Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761230AbYB2RNY (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751217AbYB2RNO (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:14 -0500 Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com ([64.233.178.241]:12320 "EHLO hs-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753781AbYB2RNO (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:14 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=E+Hs2yITktYS58FHtormUMIgWAADBADg7QzCynS6PLyjkFIg4MrRgWi6fqqEy6ZMPBZggOnye5VVRrKn9PWS9UAjDtlMSpgQtPfkdhSe4bsrIcOw8V7Ehye78c0DNM3h2OzBxRDEm4Xm0Qu0ZDG6BQh2+kkKgKE8tneCbHlI6kY= Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:14:42 -0300 From: "Carlos R. Mafra" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: ray-lk@madrabbit.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Interactivity issue in 2.6.25-rc3 Message-ID: <20080229171442.GA5173@localhost.ift.unesp.br> Mail-Followup-To: Ingo Molnar , ray-lk@madrabbit.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080228184407.GA7117@localhost.ift.unesp.br> <20080228191824.GA20019@elte.hu> <2c0942db0802281154y3176e847g8b9a4091df5cc8af@mail.gmail.com> <20080228210627.GA4337@localhost.ift.unesp.br> <20080229160408.GG27248@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080229160408.GG27248@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1816 Lines: 42 On Fri 29.Feb'08 at 17:04:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > (on-list) > > * Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > > > Is it an scheduler anomaly if 'se.wait_max' is bigger than 40 msecs > > for _any_ of the processes which appear in the debug script log? In > > other words, is the scheduler mathematically build to not allow > > latencies higher than 40 msecs? > > it is definitely an anomaly if it's bigger than 40 msecs if you clear > all stats via cfs-debug-info-clear.sh and the large latencies appear > after that. You can force it to go above 40 msecs if you run more than > say 40 CPU hogs in parallel, so it's not "mathematical", but you should > never see large latencies under normal workloads - and that includes > almost everything but "insanely high" workloads. Thank you for the explanation! > and obviously, even if you only 'feel' long delays that's too an anomaly > by definition, no matter what the scripts say about it. It might even be > a scheduler anomaly as well: for example if the scheduler clock has an > anomaly - on which the delay statistics are based too. But if the scripts say all 'se.wait_max' are < 40 msecs than it is not CFS' fault, right? Even if it takes 3 seconds for a typed letter to appear in the terminal? > generally, latencytop gives a pretty good idea about where app delays > come from. (As a second-level mechanism, in sched-devel.git you can try > the latency tracer.) Yeah, I must try latencytop to check for more things before sending an email reporting possible problems. Thanks again! -- 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/