Re: [patch] sched-2.6.0-test1-G6, interactivity changes

From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched-2.6.0-test1-G6, interactivity changes
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:49:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030728104825.01beb7e0@pop.gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1059381752.3f24e1f8ad4b5@kolivas.org>

At 06:42 PM 7/28/2003 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>Quoting Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>:
>
> > At 09:44 AM 7/28/2003 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Yes I can reproduce it, but we need the Kirk approach and cheat. Some
> > > > >workaround for tasks that have fallen onto the expired array but
> > > shouldn't be
> > > > >there needs to be created. But first we need to think of one before we
> > can
> > > > >create one...
> > > >
> > > > Oh good, it's not my poor little box.  My experimental tree already has
> > > > a "Kirk" ;-)
> > >
> > >could you give -G7 a try:
> > >
> > >         redhat.com/~mingo/O(1)-scheduler/sched-2.6.0-test1-G7
> >
> > The dd case is improved.  The dd if=/dev/zero is now prio 25, but it's
> > of=/dev/null partner remains at 16.  No change with the xmms gl thread.
>
>Well O10 is not prone to the dd/of problem (obviously since it doesn't use
>nanosecond timing [yet?]) but I can exhibit your second weird one if I try 
>hard
>enough.

Try setting the gl thread to SCHED_RR.  That causes X to lose priority here 
too.

         -Mike 