linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Question about scheduling in 2.4.20
@ 2007-06-14 17:02 Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali)
  2007-06-15 17:52 ` Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali) @ 2007-06-14 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linux Kernel

Hi,
I have a question about scheduling latencies in 2.4.20. We are seeing
that our
process (started with default priority, normal fork, exec) is not
scheduled
on the CPU for 4 seconds (from our kernel traces). Is that possible
under
heavy load ? We believe the process is still alive but I wanted to know
if
anybody has an idea from experimental results, about the worst case
scenario.
>From syscall trace, we also know that the process is not inside any
blocking
system call.

Thanks,
Ravi 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* RE: Question about scheduling in 2.4.20
  2007-06-14 17:02 Question about scheduling in 2.4.20 Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali)
@ 2007-06-15 17:52 ` Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali)
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali) @ 2007-06-15 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linux Kernel

Hi,
I notice with our version, it's running 2.4.20 but has the O(1)
scheduling patch.

Specifically, we see that the process sleeps inside an ioctl for more
than 3 secs, 
wakes up, comes out of the blocking call and is immediately scheduled
out. After 
this, it's not scheduled for next 4 secs. 
Does this look like a fairness/starvation issue ?

Thanks,
Ravi 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali) 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:02 AM
To: Linux Kernel
Subject: Question about scheduling in 2.4.20

Hi,
I have a question about scheduling latencies in 2.4.20. We are seeing
that our process (started with default priority, normal fork, exec) is
not scheduled on the CPU for 4 seconds (from our kernel traces). Is that
possible under heavy load ? We believe the process is still alive but I
wanted to know if anybody has an idea from experimental results, about
the worst case scenario.
>From syscall trace, we also know that the process is not inside any
blocking system call.

Thanks,
Ravi 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-06-15 18:03 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-06-14 17:02 Question about scheduling in 2.4.20 Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali)
2007-06-15 17:52 ` Ravinandan Arakali (rarakali)

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).