On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> please try to reproduce the bad behaviour with 2.4.4aa2. There's a bug
> in the parent-timeslice patch in 2.4 that I fixed while backporting it
> to 2.2aa and that I now forward ported the fix to 2.4aa. The fact
> 2.4.4 gives the whole timeslice to the child just gives more light to
> such bug. Unfortunately the fix doesn't apply cleanly to 2.4.4 (it's
> incremental with the numa-scheduler patch) and I need to finish a few
> more things before I can backport it myself.
I applied the 10_parent-timeslice-5 patch to 2.4.4 and tested. (If I
understood correctly, the idea of that patch is to give the remaining
child time-slice back to the parent when the child exits, but only if
there have been no time-slice recalculation since the child was created.)
It is somewhat better than plain 2.4.4, but not much. I still see
scheduling delays in the range 30-120ms when running "./fork 0.4". (fork
is a program that starts a child, the child busy waits some time (0.4s)
and then exits. The parent then immediately respawns another child, etc.
See one of my previous messages.)
-- Peter Österlund peter.osterlund@mailbox.swipnet.se Sköndalsvägen 35 http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-15919 S-128 66 Sköndal +46 8 942647 Sweden- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:26 EST