Message-ID: <40E03DB8.5090204@thinrope.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:48:08 +0900
From: Kalin KOZHUHAROV <kalin@thinrope.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040627
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
Subject: Re: Nice 19 process still gets some CPU
References: <40E035CE.1020401@techsource.com> <40E03376.20705@kolivas.org> <40E03C2D.5000809@techsource.com> <40E03844.1080000@kolivas.org>
In-Reply-To: <40E03844.1080000@kolivas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2598
Lines: 66

Con Kolivas wrote:
> Timothy Miller wrote:
> |
> | 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.
> 
> 
> Sched batch is a kernel modification, and a simple wrapper will allow
> you  to run _any_ program as sched batch without modifying it's source.
> 
> The design has had that ratio of 20:1 for a very long time so now is not
> the time to suddenly decide it should be different. However if you want
> to make it 100:1 for your machine feel free to edit kernel/sched.c
> and change
> #define MIN_TIMESLICE        ( 10 * HZ / 1000)
> to
> #define MIN_TIMESLICE        ( 1 * HZ / 1000)
> 
> That will give you more what you're looking for.

Cool!!!

As a start, I was palnning to ask such a question on LKML for a long time, but
somehow I always forget. Also running SETI@Home on a few Gentoo boxen, but with
stock kernels (now 2.6.7). Now that I started reading the first e-mail I thought
something like "Oh, so I _did_ send that mail?!?" :-)

I think I will check the suggested MIN_TIMESLICE thing on next recompile, but
it started me thinking...
Will it be very difficult to have /proc/sched/min_timeslice or something, instead of
the above compile-time define?
That will be really good thing for the our cases and souldn't (or am I overseeing
something) pose problems for "normal" usage. RFE!

BTW, the mentioned "sched batch kernel modification" is something else, right?
Google wasn't very usefull for "sched batch"...

Can you post any concrete pointers/patches for the sched batch modification?

Kalin.

-- 
||///_ o  *****************************
||//'_/>     WWW: http://ThinRope.net/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
-
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/