Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:10:10 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level |
| |
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, george anzinger wrote: > SodaPop wrote: > > > > I too have noticed that nicing processes does not work nearly as > > effectively as I'd like it to. I run on an underpowered machine, > > and have had to stop running things such as seti because it steals too > > much cpu time, even when maximally niced.
> In kernel/sched.c for HZ < 200 an adjustment of nice to tick is set up > to be nice>>2 (i.e. nice /4). This gives the ratio of nice to time > slice. Adjustments are made to make the MOST nice yield 1 jiffy, so [snip 2.4 nice scale is too limited]
I'll try to come up with a recalculation change that will make this thing behave better, while still retaining the short time slices for multiple normal-priority tasks and the cache footprint schedule() and friends currently have...
[I've got some vague ideas ... give me a few hours to put them into code ;)]
regards,
Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
- 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/
| |