linux-kernel - Re: SMP Affinity and nice

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44ECC09A.7090909@nortel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:54:50 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	rparedes@...il.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SMP Affinity and nice

Rich Paredes wrote:

> So since cpumax5 has a lower nice value and thus a higher priority (25 in
> this case), shouldn't it be given it's own cpu.   If I give cpumax5 a nice
> value of -20, it does start using it's own cpu.
> 
> My explanation would be that since the scheduler tries to limit cpu
> affinity, the nice value of 0 isn't enough to get the scheduler to move
> this process to another processors run queue.  I could be totally wrong
> here though.

I think you are correct.  The load balancer doesn't think that this is 
enough of an imbalance to go through the effort of swapping two 
processes around.

Chris
-
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/