On May 18, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Attilio Rao wrote: > OMG. > This still doesn't explain priorities like 49 or such seen in the > first report as long as we don't set priorities by hand, I'm trying to understand why this particular priority value is so concerning, but I'm a little bit confused. Can you elaborate on why you think its a problem? From previous off-list e-mails I get the impression that you are concerned that it does not fall on an RQ_PPQ boundary. Is this the case? Again, I may be completely confused, but ULE does not seem to consider RQ_PPQ when it assigns priorities for interactive threads. Here is how I came to this conclusion: From what I can tell a thread's priority might be adjusted for interactivity in sched_priority() around line 1421 of sched_ule: > score = imax(0, sched_interact_score(td) - td->td_proc- > >p_nice); > if (score < sched_interact) { > pri = PRI_MIN_REALTIME; > pri += ((PRI_MAX_REALTIME - PRI_MIN_REALTIME) / > sched_interact) > * score; One my machine (PRI_MAX_REALTIME - PRI_MIN_REALTIME) / sched_interact resolves to a value of 1. So the priority is being set to PRI_MIN_REALTIME plus the value of score. According to the comment on sched_interact_score() the returned value ranges from 0 to 100. As far as I can tell from looking at the code the calculations based on the ration of ts_runtime to ts_sleeptime aren't guaranteed to return a value divisible by RQ_PPQ. For example, on my machine tickincr turns out to be 8000. So if ts_sleeptime is 16000 and ts_runtime is 8000 sched_interact_score() will return a value of 25. Which then means the thread will be assigned a priority of PRI_MIN_REALTIME + 25. Also, looking at my currently idle system I actually have many priorities that do not fall on RQ_PPQ boundaries: > ianto# ps ax -opri | grep 43 | wc -l > 14 > ianto# ps ax -opri | grep 44 | wc -l > 70 > ianto# ps ax -opri | grep 45 | wc -l > 4 > ianto# ps ax -opri | grep 46 | wc -l > 3 > ianto# ps ax -opri | grep 47 | wc -l > 2 > ianto# ps ax -opri | grep 48 | wc -l > 1 > ianto# ps ax -opri | grep 49 | wc -l > 1 I'm running a non-SMP kernel with ULE last synced with subversion on March 16. Full system info can be found here: http://www.wanderview.com/svn/public/misc/zfs_livelock/ Anyway, I apologize if I'm missing something. I'd be happy to do more investigation if you'd like. Just let me know. Thanks! - BenReceived on Tue May 19 2009 - 00:13:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:47 UTC