[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1233306030.17301.36.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 04:00:30 -0500
From: Nathanael Hoyle <nhoyle@...letech.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority
scheduling
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 09:50 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 00:49 -0500, Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
> >
> > 1) Is my problem 'expected' based on others' understanding of the
> > current design of the scheduler, or do I have a one-off problem to
> > troubleshoot here?
>
> What kernel are you running (or did my eye glance over that detail in
> your longish email) ?
>
I didn't include it, I should have:
$ uname -a
Linux nightmare 2.6.27-gentoo-r7-nhoyle #2 SMP Wed Jan 28 19:04:37 EST
2009 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz GenuineIntel
GNU/Linux
> > 2) Am I overlooking obvious alternative (but clean) fixes?
>
> Maybe, we fixed a glaring bug in this department recently (or more even,
> if you're on older than .28).
>
Yep, .27 atm.
> > 3) Does anyone else see the need for static, but low process priorities?
>
> Yep, its rather common.
>
> > 4) What is the view of introducing a new scheduler class to handle this?
>
> We should have plenty available, SCHED_IDLE should just work -- as
> should nice 19 for that matter.
>
Thanks!
-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