[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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.)

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-30 07:19    [W:0.019 / U:38.324 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site