Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:29:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:28:52 -0500 Received: from tomts6.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.26]:33783 "EHLO tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:28:38 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ed Tomlinson Organization: me To: Subject: Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler-H6 and nice +19 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:28:33 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20020111212834.D36DFBA489@oscar.casa.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 11, 2002 11:24 am, you wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > Noticed something about tasks running with nice 19. They seem to > > always get 25-35% of the cpu. This happens with kernel compiles and > > some other benchmarking processes. If I kill the setiathome task, the > > other processes shoot up to 90% and above. > > why dont you run the setiathome task at nice +19? that way it'll share CPU > time with other niced processes. Setiathome _is_ running at nice +19... The H6 version cured the 2.4.17 boot problem here. Here are some numbers (H6) for you to consider: make bzImage with setiathome running nice +19 make bzImage 391.11s user 30.85s system 62% cpu 11:17.37 total make bzImage alone make bzImage 397.33s user 32.14s system 92% cpu 7:43.58 total Notice the large difference in run times... System is: UP K6-III 400, 512M Ed Tomlinson - 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/