Re: Why the niceness is not always taken into account ?
On 2013-04-16 10:35:05 (+0200), Alexandre Laurent alexandre.laur...@uvsq.fr wrote: My problem is that in some cases it is not working at all. It works fine if I am running both programs in the same instance of the terminal, or from a script (so, same instance of interpreter). But this is not working if I am running the instances in separate SSH session. When I say it is not working, both instances will take 24s to run and the CPU usage is just shared between the tasks. Is it possible that you're running systemd or something else which is configuring cgroups? Regards, Kristof ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Re: Why the niceness is not always taken into account ?
On the computer where I am testing, I have nothing related to cgroups. Here a 'ps aux' in case I am missing something. USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 1 0.0 0.0 10652 836 ? Ss avril09 0:03 init [2] root 2 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kthreadd] root 3 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:07 [ksoftirqd/0] root 5 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/0:0H] root 7 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/u:0H] root 8 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/0] root 9 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [rcu_bh] root 10 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 1:05 [rcu_sched] root 11 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/0] root 12 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/1] root 13 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:15 [ksoftirqd/1] root 14 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/1] root 16 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/1:0H] root 17 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/2] root 18 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:17 [ksoftirqd/2] root 19 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/2] root 21 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/2:0H] root 22 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/3] root 23 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:17 [ksoftirqd/3] root 24 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/3] root 26 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/3:0H] root 27 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/4] root 28 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [ksoftirqd/4] root 29 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/4] root 30 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/4:0] root 31 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/4:0H] root 32 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/5] root 33 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:08 [ksoftirqd/5] root 34 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/5] root 36 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/5:0H] root 37 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/6] root 38 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:10 [ksoftirqd/6] root 39 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/6] root 40 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/6:0] root 41 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/6:0H] root 42 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:01 [watchdog/7] root 43 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:08 [ksoftirqd/7] root 44 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [migration/7] root 45 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/7:0] root 46 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/7:0H] root 47 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [cpuset] root 48 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [khelper] root 49 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kdevtmpfs] root 50 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [netns] root 51 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [bdi-default] root 52 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kintegrityd] root 53 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kblockd] root 54 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:31 [kworker/0:1] root 55 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [khungtaskd] root 56 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kswapd0] root 57 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SN avril09 0:00 [ksmd] root 58 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? SN avril09 0:04 [khugepaged] root 59 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [fsnotify_mark] root 60 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [crypto] root 64 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [deferwq] root 66 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/0:2] root 67 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:08 [kworker/5:1] root 131 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [khubd] root 202 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [ata_sff] root 206 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [scsi_eh_0] root 207 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [scsi_eh_1] root 208 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [scsi_eh_2] root 209 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [scsi_eh_3] root 210 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [scsi_eh_4] root 211 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [scsi_eh_5] root 214 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/u:4] root 215 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/u:5] root 218 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:12 [kworker/1:1] root 219 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:08 [kworker/7:1] root 226 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:13 [kworker/3:1] root 230 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/5:2] root 232 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:06 [kworker/0:1H] root 241 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/5:1H] root 247 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/4:1H] root 251 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/1:1H] root 252 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/6:1H] root 253 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/2:1] root 254 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:08 [kjournald] root 258 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:08 [kworker/6:1] root 267 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/3:1H] root 337 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/2:1H] root 394 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/7:1H] root 402 0.0 0.0 21836 1784 ? Ss avril09 0:00 udevd --daemon root 583 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kpsmoused] root 584 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kworker/1:2] root 691 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:06 [kworker/4:2] root 746 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [kvm-irqfd-clean] root 748 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:00 [hd-audio0] root 772 0.0 0.0 96268 4048 ? Ss 17:28 0:00 sshd: lalexandre [priv] 10084 777 0.0 0.0 96268 1892 ? S 17:28 0:00 sshd: lalexandre@pts/1 10084 778 0.0 0.0 24008 4748 pts/1 Ss+ 17:28 0:00 -bash root 953 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S avril09 0:05 [flush-8:0] root 1037 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 17:33 0:00 [flush-0:22] root 1043 0.0 0.0 18900 1280 pts/4 R+ 17:35 0:00 ps aux root 1687
Re: Why the niceness is not always taken into account ?
Hi! On 10:35 Tue 16 Apr , Alexandre Laurent wrote: ... I am running the same test, but connecting twice on the remote machine (one connection by test instance). I am using exactly the same commands than during the others experiments. But, by using two SSH instances, the niceness will not be taken into account. The CPU will be shared equally between both instances even if htop is showing a niceness of 19 / -20 for the low priority program and the privileged program respectively. Can you check whether you have CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP enabled? If it is enabled, try running the test again with this option turned off. -Michi -- programing a layer 3+4 network protocol for mesh networks see http://michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Re: Why the niceness is not always taken into account ?
On 2013-04-16 17:38:50 (+0200), Alexandre Laurent alexandre.laur...@uvsq.fr wrote: On the computer where I am testing, I have nothing related to cgroups. Here a 'ps aux' in case I am missing something. cgroups wouldn't actually show up in the process list. Check mount to see if anyone mounts an fs of type 'cgroup'. It's perhaps even more likely that it's related to SCHED_AUTOGROUP as Michi suggested. -- Kristof ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
