Message-ID: <44ECC09A.7090909@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:54:50 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050427 Red Hat/1.7.7-1.1.3.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rparedes@gmail.com
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SMP Affinity and nice
References: <38798.127.0.0.1.1156346673.squirrel@forexproject.com>
In-Reply-To: <38798.127.0.0.1.1156346673.squirrel@forexproject.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 867
Lines: 21

Rich Paredes wrote:

> So since cpumax5 has a lower nice value and thus a higher priority (25 in
> this case), shouldn't it be given it's own cpu.   If I give cpumax5 a nice
> value of -20, it does start using it's own cpu.
> 
> My explanation would be that since the scheduler tries to limit cpu
> affinity, the nice value of 0 isn't enough to get the scheduler to move
> this process to another processors run queue.  I could be totally wrong
> here though.

I think you are correct.  The load balancer doesn't think that this is 
enough of an imbalance to go through the effort of swapping two 
processes around.

Chris
-
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/