Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:19:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:19:39 -0500 Received: from [202.135.142.194] ([202.135.142.194]:34062 "EHLO haven.ozlabs.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:19:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:19:25 +1100 From: Rusty Russell To: Manfred Spraul Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: cross-cpu balancing with the new scheduler Message-Id: <20020114131925.4fcbd127.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3C41BD74.28F6707A@colorfullife.com> In-Reply-To: <3C41BD74.28F6707A@colorfullife.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-debian-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:01:40 +0100 Manfred Spraul wrote: > Is it possible that the inter-cpu balancing is broken in 2.5.2-pre11? > > eatcpu is a simple cpu hog ("for(;;);"). Dual CPU i386. > > $nice -19 ./eatcpu&; > > $nice -19 ./eatcpu&; > > $./eatcpu&. > > IMHO it should be > * both niced process run on one cpu. > * the non-niced process runs with a 100% timeslice. > > But it's the other way around: > One niced process runs with 100%. The non-niced process with 50%, and > the second niced process with 50%. This could be fixed by making "nr_running" closer to a "priority sum". Ingo? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/