Hi,
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 09:44:35AM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> I'm working on a patch to add soft and hard CPU rate caps to the
> scheduler and the soft caps may be useful for what you're trying to do.
> They are a generalization of your SCHED_BATCH implementation in
> staircase (which would have been better called SCHED_BACKGROUND :-)
Which SCHED_BATCH? ;) I only know it as SCHED_IDLEPRIO, which, come to think
of it, is a better name, I believe :-)
(renamed due to mainline introducing a *different* SCHED_BATCH mechanism)
> IMHO) in that a task with a soft cap will only use more CPU than that
> cap if it (the cpu) would otherwise go unused. The main difference
> between this mechanism and staircase's SCHED_BATCH mechanism is that you
> can specify how much (as parts per thousand of a CPU) the task can use
> instead of just being background or not background. With the soft cap
> set to zero the effect would be essentially the same.
Interesting. Hopefully it will bring some nice results!
Andreas
On Friday 10 March 2006 20:01, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 09:44:35AM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> > I'm working on a patch to add soft and hard CPU rate caps to the
> > scheduler and the soft caps may be useful for what you're trying to do.
> > They are a generalization of your SCHED_BATCH implementation in
> > staircase (which would have been better called SCHED_BACKGROUND :-)
>
> Which SCHED_BATCH? ;) I only know it as SCHED_IDLEPRIO, which, come to
> think of it, is a better name, I believe :-)
> (renamed due to mainline introducing a *different* SCHED_BATCH mechanism)
Just to clarify what Andreas is saying: I was forced to rename my SCHED_BATCH
to SCHED_IDLEPRIO which is a more descriptive name anyway. That is in my
2.6.16-rc based patches. SCHED_BATCH as you know is now used to mean "don't
treat me as interactive" so I'm using this policy naming in 2.6.16- based
patches.
Cheers,
Con