Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: INGO Why you remove set_user_nice() from kernel/kthread.c | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:45:23 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 09:12 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 09/14/2009 08:05 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > If you're asking Ingo a question, maybe a CC is in order. > > > > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 17:42 +0400, Pavel Vasilyev wrote: > >> > >> Next patсh - > >> http://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=%2Fpub%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2F%2Fv2.6%2Fsnapshots%2Fpatch-2.6.31-git2.bz2;z=548 > >> > >> This patch defines the core processes that are working with nice leve equal to > >> zero , as in the BFS. :) > >> > >> Why? > > > > I did that, not Ingo, and did so because with kthreads that use > > diddly-spit CPU (every one I see), it's just a waste of math. What > > kthreads are you seeing using so much CPU that their weight is a factor? > > They _should_ be able to preempt and get their work done just fine > > without a boost. > > Under heavy network load ksoftirqd can use significant amounts of cpu.
OK, that may justify a weight adjustment, since it is a proxy for many. Question is, does it really need it?
I certainly have no objection to a heavier weight for any kthread, though I think it's a waste of cycles for the general case.
-Mike
-- 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/
| |