Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:24:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:24:40 -0500 Received: from services.cam.org ([198.73.180.252]:43953 "EHLO mail.cam.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:24:39 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ed Tomlinson Organization: me To: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] fix o(1) handling of threads Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 17:32:21 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Robert Love , Ingo Molnar References: <200212301645.50278.tomlins@cam.org> <1041288608.13956.173.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <1041288608.13956.173.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200212301732.21500.tomlins@cam.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 988 Lines: 23 On December 30, 2002 05:50 pm, Alan Cox wrote: > Very interesting, but I'll note there are actually two groupings to > solve - per user and per threadgroup. Also for small numbers of threads > you don't want to punish a task and ruin its balancing across CPUs This easily tuneable. As its set now 2 in queue threads from the same group are not punished, 3 and they have their timeslices halfed. Setting THREAD_PENALTY to 65 means no adjustments till 4 in queue threads exist. > Have you looked at the per user fair share stuff too ? No but a varient of the same code could be cooked up - interested?. As I am the only real user here is not much of an issue. Anyone have boxes that can be used to test per user throttles? Ed Tomlinson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/