[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: A nice CPU resource controller
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:53 +0000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>>> But your implication here is valid. It is better to fiddle with the
>>> dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary
>>> purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU
>>> resources based on external considerations.
>> I don't understand. It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based
>> on external considerations. It just steadies the administrator's hand.
> When extended to groups, I see your point. The admin would lose his
> ability to apportion bandwidth _within_ the group because he's already
> turned his only knob. That is going to be just as much of a problem for
> other methods though, and is just a question of how much complexity you
> want to pay to achieve fine grained control.

I do not see the problem. Let's say I create a group of three tasks and
give it 50% of the CPU bandwidth (perhaps by using the same nice value
for all the tasks in this group). If I then want to apportion the
bandwidth within the group as you say, then the same thing can be done
by treating them as individual tasks.

Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group
level, then the individual shares within the group are not that
important. If the individual share is important, then it should be
controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-31 12:41    [W:0.058 / U:1.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site