[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:31:54 +0100
From: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>,
cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org, "Jeremy Kerr" <jk@...abs.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SCHED_IDLE documentation
Ingo,
> > * What's the difference between SCHED_IDLE and SCHED_BATCH?
>
> SCHED_BATCH can still have nice levels from -20 to +19, it is a modified
> SCHED_OTHER/SCHED_NORMAL for "throughput oriented" workloads.
So, suppose we have two CPU intensive jobs, one SCHED_OTHER and the
other SCHED_BATCH. If they have the same nice value, will/should the
scheduler favour one over the other?
I've done some testing on 2.6.25-rc2, x86-32 for this case, and it
appears that the two jobs are treated the same by the scheduler (each
gets 50% of CPU). Is that expected behavior? If it is, can you give
an example where scheduling SCHED_OTHER versus SCHED_BATCH should show
a difference in the amount of CPU received by each process?
> SCHED_IDLE overrides the nice settings and it means a "super idle"
> workload.
Tested on 2.6.25-rc2, x86-32. Two CPU intensive jobs, one
SCHED_OTHER, nice=+19, the other SCHED_IDLE. The SCHED_OTHER job gets
~88% of CPU. So SCHED_IDLE does indeed give a "super low nice"
effect.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Maintainer of the Linux man-pages project
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Want to report a man-pages bug? Look here:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists