linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Andreas Mohr <andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	ck@vds.kolivas.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:52:42 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603081952.42853.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060308084824.GA4193@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de>

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 19:48, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 03:26:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> > > Swap prefetching doesn't use very much cpu but spends a lot of time
> > > waiting on disk in uninterruptible sleep. This means it won't get
> > > preempted often even at a low nice level since it is seen as sleeping
> > > most of the time. We want to minimise its cpu impact so yield where
> > > possible.
> >
> > yield() really sucks if there are a lot of runnable tasks.  And the
> > amount of CPU which that thread uses isn't likely to matter anyway.
> >
> > I think it'd be better to just not do this.  Perhaps alter the thread's
> > static priority instead?  Does the scheduler have a knob which can be
> > used to disable a tasks's dynamic priority boost heuristic?
>
> This problem occurs due to giving a priority boost to processes that are
> sleeping a lot (e.g. in this case, I/O, from disk), right?
> Forgive me my possibly less insightful comments, but maybe instead of
> adding crude specific hacks (namely, yield()) to each specific problematic
> process as it comes along (it just happens to be the swap prefetch thread
> this time) there is a *general way* to give processes with lots of disk I/O
> sleeping much smaller amounts of boost in order to get them preempted more
> often in favour of an actually much more critical process (game)?
>
> >From the discussion here it seems this problem is caused by a *general*
>
> miscalculation of processes sleeping on disk I/O a lot.
>
> Thus IMHO this problem should be solved in a general way if at all
> possible.

No. We already do special things for tasks waiting on uninterruptible sleep. 
This is more about what is exaggerated on a dual array expiring scheduler 
design that mainline has.

Cheers,
Con

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

      reply	other threads:[~2006-03-08  8:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-07 23:13 Con Kolivas
2006-03-07 23:26 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-07 23:32   ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  0:05     ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-08  0:51       ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  1:11         ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-08  1:12           ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  1:19             ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  1:23             ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-08  1:28               ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  2:08                 ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08  2:12                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  2:18                     ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08  2:22                       ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  2:27                         ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08  2:30                           ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08  2:52                             ` [ck] " André Goddard Rosa
2006-03-08  3:03                               ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08  3:05                               ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 21:07                                 ` Zan Lynx
2006-03-08 23:00                                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 23:48                                     ` Zan Lynx
2006-03-09  0:07                                       ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09  3:13                                         ` Zan Lynx
2006-03-09  4:08                                           ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09  4:54                                             ` Lee Revell
2006-03-08  7:51                 ` Jan Knutar
2006-03-08  8:39                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09  8:57             ` Helge Hafting
2006-03-09  9:08               ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09 22:44                 ` Peter Williams
2006-03-10  9:01                   ` [ck] " Andreas Mohr
2006-03-10  9:11                     ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-10  0:58                 ` Peter Williams
2006-03-08 22:24       ` Pavel Machek
2006-03-09  2:22         ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-09  2:30           ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-09  2:57             ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-09  9:11               ` Con Kolivas
2006-03-08 13:36     ` [ck] " Con Kolivas
2006-03-17  9:06       ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-08  8:48   ` Andreas Mohr
2006-03-08  8:52     ` Con Kolivas [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200603081952.42853.kernel@kolivas.org \
    --to=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de \
    --cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox