Message-ID: <40E03C2D.5000809@techsource.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:41:33 -0400
From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Nice 19 process still gets some CPU
References: <40E035CE.1020401@techsource.com> <40E03376.20705@kolivas.org>
In-Reply-To: <40E03376.20705@kolivas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 961
Lines: 26


Con Kolivas wrote:

> 
> It definitely should _not_ starve. That is the unixy way of doing
> things. Everything must go forward. Around 5% cpu for nice 19 sounds
> just right. If you want scheduling only when there's spare cpu cycles
> you need a sched batch(idle) implementation.
> 
>

Well, since I can't rewrite the app, I can't make it sched batch.  Nice 
values are an easy thing to get at for anything that's running.

Besides, comparing nice 0 to nice 19, I'd expect something more like a 
100:1 ratio or worse.  (That is, I don't expect nice to be linear.)

Maybe this is just me, but when I set a process to the worst possible 
priority (nice 19), I expect it only to run when nothing else needs the CPU.

-
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/