Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031297AbXECNp3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:45:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031304AbXECNp2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:45:28 -0400 Received: from [212.12.190.201] ([212.12.190.201]:33160 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031297AbXECNp1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:45:27 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v7 Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:49:23 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200704300820.49078.a1426z@gawab.com> <200705031416.50928.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070503123655.GA705@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070503123655.GA705@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200705031649.23331.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 798 Lines: 25 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Al Boldi wrote: > > [...] But I can still see these awful latency blips in the presence of > > negatively niced chew.c at -10 and two chew.c's at nice 0. [...] > > of course: you asked for the two chew's to be treated like that and CFS > delivered it! :-) > > nice -10 means the two chew's will get ~90+% of the CPU time, and all > other nice 0 tasks will get <10% of CPU time. Yes, but the latencies fluctuate wildly from 5ms to sched_granularity_ns*1000. Isn't it possible to smooth this? Thanks! -- Al - 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/