Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:06:23 +0100 (MET) | From | Max <> | Subject | Re: [uPATCH] SMP scheduling fix (?) |
| |
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Robert M. Hyatt wrote: > >> This would make a good discussion point, since it is a topic I am >> highly interested in. Take a process whose nice value is 0. And >> a process that has been niced to +10. What is the expectation there? > >The expectation is that the +10 niced program gets half the >CPU time from the 'normal' process. > >> I'd _really_ like to have a nice value that says "don't run unless >> you are twiddling your thumbs". Ie a nice 20 perhaps, that says I >> don't want this to run unless there is _nothing_ else to schedule. > >I have a patch that does this. But since the patch can trigger >a known race condition (hardly ever happens, I've seen it once >in 4 months) and since I want people to test vanilla 2.2.0-pre* >as much as possible I haven't updated the patch since -132.
Hehe. That's exactly what a friend of mine and me wrote some time ago: we added nice +20 as `idle' priority. Our small patch was refused on linux-kernel in favour of the patch containing sched-idle and other things, but if someone wants it, I can resurrect it. For the moment I rescued a diff against 2.0.36, but porting it to 2.2.0-preX is easy, jusk ask ;)
Massimiliano Ghilardi
P.S. I am subscribed to linux-kernel but not to linux-smp. Please remember that if you reply to this message.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |