this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
146 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

7107 readers
756 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

One big difference that I've noticed between Windows and Linux is that Windows does a much better job ensuring that the system stays responsive even under heavy load.

For instance, I often need to compile Rust code. Anyone who writes Rust knows that the Rust compiler is very good at using all your cores and all the CPU time it can get its hands on (which is good, you want it to compile as fast as possible after all). But that means that for a time while my Rust code is compiling, I will be maxing out all my CPU cores at 100% usage.

When this happens on Windows, I've never really noticed. I can use my web browser or my code editor just fine while the code compiles, so I've never really thought about it.

However, on Linux when all my cores reach 100%, I start to notice it. It seems like every window I have open starts to lag and I get stuttering as the programs struggle to get a little bit of CPU that's left. My web browser starts lagging with whole seconds of no response and my editor behaves the same. Even my KDE Plasma desktop environment starts lagging.

I suppose Windows must be doing something clever to somehow prioritize user-facing GUI applications even in the face of extreme CPU starvation, while Linux doesn't seem to do a similar thing (or doesn't do it as well).

Is this an inherent problem of Linux at the moment or can I do something to improve this? I'm on Kubuntu 24.04 if it matters. Also, I don't believe it is a memory or I/O problem as my memory is sitting at around 60% usage when it happens with 0% swap usage, while my CPU sits at basically 100% on all cores. I've also tried disabling swap and it doesn't seem to make a difference.

EDIT: Tried nice -n +19, still lags my other programs.

EDIT 2: Tried installing the Liquorix kernel, which is supposedly better for this kinda thing. I dunno if it's placebo but stuff feels a bit snappier now? My mouse feels more responsive. Again, dunno if it's placebo. But anyways, I tried compiling again and it still lags my other stuff.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Responsiveness for typical everyday usage is one of the main scenarios kernels like Zen/Liquorix and their out of the box scheduler configurations are meant to improve, and in my experience they help a lot. Maybe give them a go sometime!

Edit: For added context, I remember Zen significantly improving responsiveness under heavy loads such as the one OP is experiencing back when I was experimenting with some particularly computationally intensive tasks

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

https://github.com/zen-kernel/zen-kernel/wiki/Detailed-Feature-List

That's the reason I installed Zen too and use it as the default. While Zen is meant to improve responsiveness of interactive usage on the system, it comes at a price. The overall performance might decrease and it should require more power. But if someone needs to solve the problem of the OP (need to work on the computer while under heavy load), then Zen is probably the right tool. Some distributions have the Zen Kernel in their repository and the install process is straightforward.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (9 children)

nice +5 cargo build

nice is a program that sets priorities for the CPU scheduler. Default is 0. Goes from -19, which is max prio, to +19 which is min prio.

This way other programs will get CPU time before cargo/rustc.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's more of a workaround than a solution. I don't want to have to do this for every intensive program I run. The desktop should just be responsive without any configuration.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You could give your compiler a lower priority instead of upping everything else.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'd still need to lower the priority of my C++ compiler or whatever else intensive stuff I'd be running. I would like a general solution, not a patch just for running my Rust compiler.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You could try using nice to give the rust compiler less priority (higher number) for scheduling.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This seems too complicated if I need to do that for other programs as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Lots of bad answers here. Obviously the kernel should schedule the UI to be responsive even under high load. That’s doable; just prioritise running those over batch jobs. That’s a perfectly valid demand to have on your system.

This is one of the cases where Linux shows its history as a large shared unix system and its focus as a server OS; if the desktop is just a program like any other, who’s to say it should have more priority than Rust?

I’ve also run into this problem. I never found a solution for this, but I think one of those fancy new schedulers might work, or at least is worth a shot. I’d appreciate hearing about it if it does work for you!

Hopefully in a while there are separate desktop-oriented schedulers for the desktop distros (and ideally also better OOM handlers), but that seems to be a few years away maybe.

In the short term you may have some success in adjusting the priority of Rust with nice, an incomprehensibly named tool to adjust the priority of your processes. High numbers = low priority (the task is “nicer” to the system). You run it like this: nice -n5 cargo build.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Obviously the kernel should schedule the UI to be responsive even under high load.

Obviously... to you.

This is one of the cases where Linux shows its history as a large shared unix system and its focus as a server OS; if the desktop is just a program like any other,

Exactly.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Obviously… to you.

No. I'm sorry but if you are logged in with a desktop environment, obviously the UI of that desktop needs to stay responsive at all times, also under heavy load. If you don't care about such a basic requirement, you could run the system without a desktop or you could tweak it yourself. But the default should be that a desktop is prioritized and input from users is responded to as quickly as possible.

This whole "Linux shouldn't assume anything"-attitude is not helpful. It harms Linux's potential as a replacement for Windows and macOS and also just harms its UX. Linux cannot ever truly replace Windows and macOS if it doesn't start thinking about these basic UX guarantees, like a responsive desktop.

This is one of the cases where Linux shows its history as a large shared unix system and its focus as a server OS; if the desktop is just a program like any other,

Exactly.

You say that like it's a good thing; it is not. The desktop is not a program like any other, it is much more important that the desktop keeps being responsive than most other programs in the general case. Of course, you should have the ability to customize that but for the default and the general case, desktop responsiveness needs to be prioritized.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Even for a server, the UI should always be priority. If you're not using the desktop/UI, what's the harm?

When you do need to remote into a box, it's often when shit's already sideways, and having an unresponsive UI (or even a sluggish shell) gets old.

A person interacting with a system needs priority.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

I meant, obviously in the sense that Windows and macOS both apparently already do this and that it’s a desirable property to have, not that it’s technically easy.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The System76 scheduler helps to tune for better desktop responsiveness under high load: https://github.com/pop-os/system76-scheduler I think if you use Pop!OS this may be set up out-of-the-box.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"The kernel runs out of time to solve the NP-complete scheduling problem in time."

More responsiveness requires more context-switching, which then subtracts from the available total CPU bandwidth. There is a point where the task scheduler and CPUs get so overloaded that a non-RT kernel can no longer guarantee timed events.

So, web browsing is basically poison for the task scheduler under high load. Unless you reserve some CPU bandwidth (with cgroups, etc.) beforehand for the foreground task.

Since SMT threads also aren't real cores (about ~0.4 - 0.7 of an actual core), putting 16 tasks on a 16/8 machine is only going to slow down the execution of all other tasks on the shared cores. I usually leave one CPU thread for "housekeeping" if I need to do something else. If I don't, some random task is going to be very pleased by not having to share a core. That "spare" CPU thread will be running literally everything else, so it may get saturated by the kernel tasks alone.

nice +5 is more of a suggestion to "please run this task with a worse latency on a contended CPU.".

(I think I should benchmark make -j15 vs. make -j16 to see what the difference is)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (6 children)

That's all fine, but as I said, Windows seems to handle this situation without a hitch. Why can Windows do it when Linux can't?

Also, it sounds like you suggest there is a tradeoff between bandwidth and responsiveness. That sounds reasonable. But shouldn't Linux then allow me to easily decide where I want that tradeoff to lie? Currently I only have workarounds. Why isn't there some setting somewhere to say "Yes, please prioritise responsiveness even if it reduces bandwidth a little bit". And that probably ought to be the default setting. I don't think a responsive UI should be questioned - that should just be a given.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're right of course. I think the issue is that Linux doesn't care about the UI. As far as it is concerned GUI is just another program. That's the same reason you don't have things like ctrl-alt-del on Linux.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

To be fair, there should be some heuristics to boost priority of anything that has received input from the hardware. (a button click e.g.) The no-care-latency jobs can be delayed indefinitely.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It really depends on your desktop. For instance gnome handles high CPU very well in my experience.

I would run your compiler in a podman container with a CPU cap.

Edit: it might be related to me using Fedora

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sounds like Kubuntu's fault to me. If they provide the desktop environment, shouldn't they be the ones making it play nice with the Linux scheduler? Linux is configurable enough to support real-time scheduling.

FWIW I run NixOS and I've never experienced lag while compiling Rust code.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I have a worrying feeling that if I opened a bug for the KDE desktop about this, they'd just say it's a problem of the scheduler and that's the kernel so it's out of their hands. But maybe I should try?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

The kde peeps are insanely nice so I guess you should try.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

I face similar issue when updating steam games although I think that's related to disk read write

But either way, issues like these gonna need to be address before we finally hit the year of Linux desktop lol

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

So I just tried using nice -n +19 and it still lags my browser and my UI. So that's not even a good workaround.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you compile on windows server the same problem happens. The server is basically gone. So there seems to be some special scheduler configuration in windows client os.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

While I ultimately think your solution is to use a different scheduler, and that the most useful responses you've gotten have been about that; and that I agree with your response that Linux distros should really be tuning the scheduler for the UI by default and let developers and server runners take the burden of tuning differently for their workloads... all that said, I can't let this comment on your post go by:

which is good, you want it to compile as fast as possible after all

If fast compile times are your priority, you're using the wrong programming language. One of Go's fundamental principles is fast compile times; even with add-on caching tooling in other languages, Go remains one of the fastest-compiling statically compiled, strongly typed programming languages available. I will not install Haskell programs unless they're precompiled bin packages, that's a hard rule. I will only reluctantly install Rust packages, and will always choose bins if available. But I'll pick a -git Go package without hesitation, because they build crazy fast.

Anyway, I hope you find the scheduler of your dreams and live happily ever after.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I only said as fast as possible - I generally think the compile times are fine and not a huge problem. Certainly worth it for all the benefits.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

There’s no free lunch after all. Go’s quick compilation also means the language is very simple, which means all the complexity shifts to the program’s code.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Linux defaults are optimized for performance and not for desktop usability.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

If that is the case, Linux will never be a viable desktop OS alternative.

Either that needs to change or distributions targeting desktop needs to do it. Maybe we need desktop and server variants of Linux. It kinda makes sense as these use cases are quite different.

EDIT: I'm curious about the down votes. Do people really believe that it benefits Linux to deprioritise user experience in this way? Do you really think Linux will become an actual commonplace OS if it keeps focusing on "performance" instead of UX?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

No. And even worse is Linux's OOM behaviour - 99% of the time it just reboots the machine! Yes I have swap and zswap.

Linux is just really bad at desktop.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Yep, CPU scheduler is the correct answer. Id recommend reading this arch wiki on it. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/improving_performance

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Firefox on my raspberry pi grinds the thing to a halt, so I created a shortcut:

systemd-run --scope -p MemoryLimit=500M -p CPUQuota=50% firefox-esr

You say it doesn't top out on memory, so you don't need the -p MemoryLimit=500M parameter. Set your compiler CPUQuota to maybe 80%, or whatever you can work out with trial and error.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

All the comments here are great. One other suggestion I didn't see: use chrt to start the build process with the sched_batch policy. It's lower than sched_other, which most processes will be in, so the compilation processes should be bumped off the CPU for virtually everyone else

load more comments
view more: next ›