Subject: Re: A nice CPU resource controller
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: balbir@in.ibm.com, Martin Ohlin <martin.ohlin@control.lth.se>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <44F671BE.6000607@bigpond.net.au>
References: <44F5AB45.8030109@control.lth.se>
	 <661de9470608300841o757a8704te4402a7015b230c5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44F6365A.8010201@bigpond.net.au>
	 <1157007190.6035.14.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
	 <44F671BE.6000607@bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:44:41 +0000
Message-Id: <1157010281.18561.26.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1124
Lines: 26

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:21 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> > 
> >> But your implication here is valid.  It is better to fiddle with the 
> >> dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary 
> >> purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU 
> >> resources based on external considerations.
> > 
> > I don't understand.  It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based
> > on external considerations.  It just steadies the administrator's hand.
> 
> Not exactly.  If "nice" is being (automatically) fiddled to meet some 
> measurable requirement such as the amount of CPU tasks get it is no 
> longer available as a means for the indication of the relative 
> importance of the tasks.

Yeah, I thought about that meanwhile, see other reply.

	-Mike

-
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/