Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:05:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:05:11 -0400 Received: from mail6.bigmailbox.com ([209.132.220.37]:31238 "EHLO mail6.bigmailbox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:05:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:04:12 -0700 Message-Id: <200104022304.QAA19333@mail6.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-Ip: [24.5.157.48] From: "Quim K Holland" To: szabi@inf.elte.hu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "BS" == BERECZ Szabolcs writes: BS> ... a setiathome running at nice level 19, and a bladeenc at BS> nice level 0. setiathome uses 14 percent, and bladeenc uses BS> 84 percent of the processor. I think, setiathome should use BS> max 2-3 percent. the 14 percent is way too much for me. BS> ... BS> with kernel 2.2.16 it worked for me. BS> now I use 2.4.2-ac20 Would it the case that bladeenc running on 2.4.2 spends more time doing I/O? I am not saying that the userland makes more I/O requests, but if the same set of I/O requests are taking longer to complete on 2.4.2, then while bladeenc is waiting for their completion, it is not so surprising that the other process uses the otherwise-idle CPU cycles. ------------------------------------------------------------ --== Sent via Deja.com ==-- http://www.deja.com/ - 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/