Re: (ondemand) CPU governor regression between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24

["Toralf Förster" <toralf.foerster@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1235 bytes --]

At Sunday 27 January 2008 Mike Galbraith wrote :
> 
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 13:39 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > Ough, does this mean that for a multi-user scenario of 2 non-root users "A" and
> > "B" each running exactly 1 process with nice level 0 and 19 rerspectively
> > that both share ~50% of the CPU *and furthermore* that that user "B" does never
> > ever have a  chance to be nice to user "A" although his process should really
> > use only those CPU cycles not eated by any other user ?
> 
> Yes.  If you want one task group to receive less cpu cycles, you have to
> 'nice' that task group by reducing it's share.

> I think it's better to just disable fair group scheduling if it doesn't
> suit your needs.  It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea.

Yes, disabling this kernel option is much better for me as a notebook user.

BTW t I've one more question related to this topic:

Is it correct that within the scenario described above user "A" never gets more
than 50% of the CPU as soon as user "B" is logged into the system (because of
the login process itself) ?

> 	-Mike
> 



-- 
MfG/Sincerely

Toralf Förster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]