From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SCHED_IDLE documentation
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:11:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1204629104.6241.49.camel@lappy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfd18e0f0803030606v7ba30121k19f2e90c595451d8@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:06 +0100, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > * What's the difference between SCHED_IDLE and SCHED_BATCH?
> > > >
> > > > SCHED_BATCH can still have nice levels from -20 to +19, it is a
> > > > modified SCHED_OTHER/SCHED_NORMAL for "throughput oriented"
> > > > workloads.
> > >
> > > So, suppose we have two CPU intensive jobs, one SCHED_OTHER and the
> > > other SCHED_BATCH. If they have the same nice value, will/should the
> > > scheduler favour one over the other?
> >
> > yes - SCHED_BATCH does not modify the CPU usage proportion for
> > CPU-intense tasks, it's their nice value that controls the proportion.
> > What it will influence is wakeup behavior - i.e. wakeup-intense
> > workloads should schedule less with SCHED_BATCH. (but how that is done
> > is really fluid and will probably tweaked in the future.)
> >
> > Ingo
>
> So, I've tweaked the description of SCHED_BATCH in the
> sched_setscheduler.2 man page, and added some text describing
> SCHED_IDLE. Relevant excepts below. Does his look okay to you?
>
> SCHED_OTHER is the default universal time-sharing sched-
> uler policy used by most processes. SCHED_BATCH is
> intended for "batch" style execution of processes.
> SCHED_IDLE is intended for running very low priority
> background jobs. SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are intended
> for special time-critical applications that need precise
> control over the way in which runnable processes are
> selected for execution.
>
> Processes scheduled with SCHED_OTHER, SCHED_BATCH, or
> SCHED_IDLE must be assigned the static priority 0. Pro-
> cesses scheduled under SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR can have a
> static priority in the range 1 to 99.
> ...
>
> SCHED_BATCH: Scheduling batch processes
> (Since Linux 2.6.16.) SCHED_BATCH can only be used at
> static priority 0. This policy is similar to
> SCHED_OTHER, except that it will cause the scheduler to
> always assume that the process is CPU-intensive. Conse-
> quently, the scheduler will apply a small scheduling
> penalty with respect to wakeup behaviour, so that this
> process is mildly disfavored in scheduling decisions.
> This policy is useful for workloads that are non-interac-
> tive, but do not want to lower their nice value, and for
> workloads that want a deterministic scheduling policy
> without interactivity causing extra preemptions (between
> the workload's tasks).
>
> SCHED_IDLE: Scheduling very low priority jobs
> (Since Linux 2.6.23.) SCHED_IDLE can only be used at
> static priority 0; the process nice value has no influ-
> ence for this policy. This policy is intended for run-
> ning jobs at extremely low priority (lower even than a
> +19 nice value with the SCHED_OTHER or SCHED_BATCH poli-
> cies).
Your SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_IDLE descriptions seem at odds, in that your
SCHED_IDLE description says you can run SCHED_BATCH +19, however your
SCHED_BATCH description says you can only run at nice 0.
To clarify SCHED_BATCH _can_ indeed use the full nice range.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-04 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1203376368.275756.252634247263.1.gpush@pokey>
[not found] ` <200803030612.28039.arnd@arndb.de>
[not found] ` <20080303051719.GA26102@lst.de>
2008-03-03 6:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-03-03 7:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-03 8:40 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 9:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-03 9:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-03-03 10:03 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 10:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-03 10:12 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 10:07 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 10:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-03 10:20 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 12:31 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 12:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-03 14:06 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-04 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2008-03-05 15:19 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 14:42 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-05 15:02 ` Michael Kerrisk
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=1204629104.6241.49.camel@lappy \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jk@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mtk.manpages@googlemail.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome