Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: (ondemand) CPU governor regression between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:58:48 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 13:39 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote: > Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2008 schrieben Sie: > > > > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:00 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote: > > > BTW the dnetc process runs under the user "dnetc" with nice level -19, > > > my process runs under my own user id "tfoerste" therefore I wouldn't expect > > > that both processes got the same processor resources isn't it ? : > > > > Normal. Nice level controls cpu distribution _within_ a task group, > > whereas distribution between groups is controlled by cpu_share. It's > > going to take a while for folks to get used to having two levels of cpu > > distribution. > > Ough, does this mean that for a multi-user scenario of 2 non-root users "A" and > "B" each running exactly 1 process with nice level 0 and 19 rerspectively > that both share ~50% of the CPU *and furthermore* that that user "B" does never > ever have a chance to be nice to user "A" although his process should really > use only those CPU cycles not eated by any other user ?
Yes. If you want one task group to receive less cpu cycles, you have to 'nice' that task group by reducing it's share.
> If the answer is yes what's about extending the current behaviour to consider > (optionally) nice level of running processes in the case where > CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED is set ?
I think it's better to just disable fair group scheduling if it doesn't suit your needs. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
-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/
| |