Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:40:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:40:24 -0400 Received: from h181n1fls11o1004.telia.com ([195.67.254.181]:49552 "EHLO ringstrom.mine.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:40:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 23:44:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Ringstrom X-X-Sender: tori@boris.prodako.se To: Alan Cox cc: Ingo Molnar , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Problem with the O(1) scheduler in 2.4.19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 Content-Length: 1248 Lines: 30 On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Tobias Ringstrom wrote: > On 2 Sep 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > It isnt a regression, its a bug fix. The nice value is now being > > honoured properly. > > The problem is that the kernel decided to nice the process (by changing > the priority, not the nice value) as if it was a background task, but it's > not a background task. On the contrary, it's highly interactive. I think I will have to take this back. It looks like even the old kernel treats the game server as a background process, but as you said, it does not make such a big difference. Another change is that the prio value varies very quickly over time (as seen in top). I do not recall seeing that using the O(1)-scheduler. But I still do not understand why the process is classified as non-interactive... Around 20 times per second it does a nanosleep for 1 ms which takes around 40 ms in reality. (Seeing this makes me believe that I should try to increase HZ, but that is a separate issue.) /Tobias - 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/