From: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
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 15:42:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cfd18e0f0803030642m62cec927p80f1250fbe98afc6@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080303125227.GA22160@elte.hu>
Ingo,
One more thought while we're in this thread. In my recent tests I
notice that the magnitude of the effect of nice values has changed
quite a lot in recent times. For example, back in 2.6.18, two CPU
intensive processes would get the following shares of the CPU over 100
seconds of run time (here, three different examples of nice value
settings):
A nice B nice %A %B
-20 -10 58.3 41.7
-20 0 89.2 10.8
-20 +19 99.7 0.3
In 2.6.25-rc2, we have:
A nice B nice %A %B
-20 -10 90.5 9.5
-20 0 99.0 1.0
-20 +19 100.0 0.0
While I realise that nice values are not intended to guarantee any
particular degree of access to the CPU, these wide variations in the
effect of the nice value are surprising. (For the 2.6.25-rc2 -20/+19
case, my test shows the low priority process is getting 0.000% of the
CPU -- i.e., < one thousandth of a percent. In other words it is in
effect being totally starved of the CPU.) Any comments?
Cheers,
Michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-03 14:42 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
2008-03-05 15:19 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-03-03 14:42 ` Michael Kerrisk [this message]
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=cfd18e0f0803030642m62cec927p80f1250fbe98afc6@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages@googlemail.com \
--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 \
/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®