[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:0.097 / U:3.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site