From: Greg Banks Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] knfsd: avoid overloading the CPU scheduler with enormous load averages Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:10:06 +1100 Message-ID: <49BDC30E.7000508@sgi.com> References: <20090113102633.719563000@sgi.com> <20090113102653.664553000@sgi.com> <20090211231033.GK27686@fieldses.org> <499CFB6B.1010902@sgi.com> <20090315212112.GB27568@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Linux NFS ML To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.179.29]:59655 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753692AbZCPDFZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:05:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090315212112.GB27568@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 05:25:47PM +1100, Greg Banks wrote: > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:26:35PM +1100, Greg Banks wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> It's a simple enough patch, but without any suggestion for how to retest >>> on a more recent kernel, I'm uneasy. >>> >> [...] >> >> Does that make you less uneasy? >> > > Yes, thanks! > > Queued up for 2.6.30, barring objections. Thanks. > But perhaps we should pass on > the patch and your results to people who know the scheduler better and > see if they can explain e.g. the loadavg numbers. > If you like. Personally I'm happy with assuming that it's because nfsd is putting an unnaturally harsh load on the scheduler. -- Greg Banks, P.Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. the brightly coloured sporks of revolution. I don't speak for SGI.