Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755844AbZINPp0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:45:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755810AbZINPpZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:45:25 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:52906 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755775AbZINPpY (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:45:24 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/O8b0kuAvOYUM/RESyMnlJTzKcFDOBES/Svl+Hgt HI9KWIHQg+XRpN Subject: Re: INGO Why you remove set_user_nice() from kernel/kthread.c From: Mike Galbraith To: Chris Friesen Cc: pavel@pavlinux.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <4AAE5D60.2080703@nortel.com> References: <200909141742.45487.pavel@pavlinux.ru> <1252937140.6500.11.camel@marge.simson.net> <4AAE5D60.2080703@nortel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:45:23 +0200 Message-Id: <1252943123.12986.70.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.51 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1401 Lines: 35 On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 09:12 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 09/14/2009 08:05 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > If you're asking Ingo a question, maybe a CC is in order. > > > > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 17:42 +0400, Pavel Vasilyev wrote: > >> > >> Next patсh - > >> http://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=%2Fpub%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2F%2Fv2.6%2Fsnapshots%2Fpatch-2.6.31-git2.bz2;z=548 > >> > >> This patch defines the core processes that are working with nice leve equal to > >> zero , as in the BFS. :) > >> > >> Why? > > > > I did that, not Ingo, and did so because with kthreads that use > > diddly-spit CPU (every one I see), it's just a waste of math. What > > kthreads are you seeing using so much CPU that their weight is a factor? > > They _should_ be able to preempt and get their work done just fine > > without a boost. > > Under heavy network load ksoftirqd can use significant amounts of cpu. OK, that may justify a weight adjustment, since it is a proxy for many. Question is, does it really need it? I certainly have no objection to a heavier weight for any kthread, though I think it's a waste of cycles for the general case. -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/