Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:55:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:54:51 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:13060 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:54:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:54:23 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Peter Osterlund , lkml , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] scheduler fixups ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On 2 Jan 2002, Peter Osterlund wrote: > > Davide Libenzi writes: > > > > > a still lower ts > > > > This also lowers the effectiveness of nice values. In 2.5.2-pre6, if I > > run two cpu hogs at nice values 0 and 19 respectively, the niced task > > will get approximately 20% cpu time (on x86 with HZ=100) and this > > patch will give even more cpu time to the niced task. Isn't 20% too > > much? > > The problem is that with HZ == 100 you don't have enough granularity > to correctly scale down nice time slices. Shorter time slices helps > the interactive feel that's why i'm pushing for this. So don't give the niced task a new timeslice each time, but only once in a while. regards, Rik -- Shortwave goes a long way: irc.starchat.net #swl http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/