lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute
Hi!

> > I don't want to start a bikeshedding session here, but I agree with Parth
> > on the interpretation of the values.
> >
> > I've always read niceness values as
> > -20 (least nice to the system / other processes)
> > +19 (most nice to the system / other processes)
> >
> > So following this trend I'd see for latency-nice:
>
>
> So jotting down separately, in case if we think to have "latency-nice"
> terminology, then we might need to select one of the 2 interpretation:
>
> 1).
> > -20 (least nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice latency for throughput)
> > +19 (most nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice throughput for latency)
> >
>
> 2).
> -20 (least nice to other task in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-sensitive)
> +19 (most nice to other tasks in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-forgoing)

For the record, interpretation 2 makes sense to me.

Pavel

--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-27 15:54    [W:0.049 / U:5.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site