From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>
Cc: 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: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:52:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080303125227.GA22160@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfd18e0f0803030431n69df391dw53843d5079d906dd@mail.gmail.com>
* 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-03 12:53 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 [this message]
2008-03-03 14:06 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-04 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20080303125227.GA22160@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--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=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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®