Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:16:46 +0100 (CET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority scheduling |
| |
On Friday 2009-01-30 06:49, Nathanael Hoyle wrote: > >I have done a bit of research on how the kernel scheduler works, and >why I am seeing this behavior. I had previously, apparently >ignorantly, equated 'nice 19' with being akin to Microsoft Windows' >'idle' thread priority, and assumed it would never steal CPU cycles >from a process with a higher(lower, depending on nomenclature) >priority. [...] > >One[...] is to alter the semantics of nice 19 such that it does not >boost. Since this would break existing assumptions and code, I do >not think it is feasible. [...] Finally, new scheduling classes >could be introduced[...]
Surprise. There is already SCHED_BATCH (intended for computing tasks as I gathered) and SCHED_IDLE (for idle stuff).
>Please make the obvious substitution to my email address in order to >bypass the spam-killer.
(Obviously this is not obvious... there are no 'nospam' keywords or similar in it that could be removed.)
| |