[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1233302349.17301.27.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:59:09 -0500
From: Nathanael Hoyle <nhoyle@...letech.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority
scheduling
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 08:21 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2009-01-30 07:40, Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
> >On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 07:16 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> >The one discussion I saw referencing SCHED_BATCH seemed to imply that it
> >was a non-standard kernel patch by Con Kolivas in one of his -ck
> >variants that never made it into mainline and is not being maintained.
> >Is this inaccurate?
>
> The presence of SCHED_BATCH in linux/sched.h tells me it is available
> (on the other hand, SCHED_ISO, also from -ck, is only listed as a comment.)
>
Fair enough. I should have re-checked recent sources after your mention
rather than going on the old thread I found.
> >I was unfamiliar with SCHED_IDLE. Having done a little Googling now, I
> >finally find reference to the man page for sched_setscheduler(2). This
> >appears that it is likely what I wanted.
> >
> >I think the information I had been able to find was somehwat out of
> >date.
>
> The manpage does say it, but if your local distro does not
> mention SCHED_BATCH/SCHED_IDLE, then that's a pretty sad distro.
>
> The doc in sched_setschedule seems complete to me as of man-pages 3.13.
>
> >Is there currently a standardized userspace tool to use to run a command
> >in order to alter its scheduling class? Obviously writing one would be
> >trivial, but didn't know if something like:
>
> man chrt
The latest version of man chrt that I can find implies that it handles
SCHED_BATCH but not SCHED_IDLE. To that end, if anyone else is
interested, I have thrown together the above-suggested 'runidle' which
will invoke the passed command using the SCHED_IDLE scheduler; it's
nothing fancy.
I am running foldingathome under it at the moment, and it seems to be
improving the situation somewhat, but I still need/want to test with
Mike's referenced patches.
runidle.c:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sched.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
extern char **environ;
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
if(argc<2) {
perror("Must specify at least one argument: the path to the program
to " \
"execute. Additional arguments may be specified which will be
passed " \
"to the called program.");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_IDLE, NULL);
if(argc==2) {
if(execve(argv[1], NULL, environ) == -1) {
perror("Failed to execve target!");
}
} else {
if(execve(argv[1], argv+1, environ) == -1) {
perror("Failed to execve target!");
}
}
/* should be unreachable */
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
-Nathanael
--
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