Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Keep kthreads at default priority
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       efault@gmx.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu,
       linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20090909172916.949DA526EC9@mailhub.coreip.homeip.net>
References: <1252486344.28645.18.camel@marge.simson.net>
	 <tip-61cbe54d9479ad98283b2dda686deae4c34b2d59@git.kernel.org>
	 <20090909172916.949DA526EC9@mailhub.coreip.homeip.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:06:41 +0200
Message-Id: <1252516001.22918.6.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 954
Lines: 26

On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 09:55 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:37:34PM +0000, tip-bot for Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> > index eb8751a..5fe7099 100644
> > --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> > @@ -16,8 +16,6 @@
> >  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> >  #include <trace/events/sched.h>
> >  
> > -#define KTHREAD_NICE_LEVEL (-5)
> > -
> 
> Why don't we just redefine it to 0? We may find out later that we'd
> still prefer to have kernel threads have boost.

Seems sensible, also the traditional reasoning behind this nice level is
that kernel threads do work on behalf of multiple tasks. Its a kind of
prio ceiling thing.

--
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/