[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252937140.6500.11.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:05:40 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: pavel@...linux.ru
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: INGO Why you remove set_user_nice() from kernel/kthread.c
If you're asking Ingo a question, maybe a CC is in order.
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 17:42 +0400, Pavel Vasilyev wrote:
>
> Next patсh -
> http://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=%2Fpub%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2F%2Fv2.6%2Fsnapshots%2Fpatch-2.6.31-git2.bz2;z=548
>
> This patch defines the core processes that are working with nice leve equal to
> zero , as in the BFS. :)
>
> Why?
I did that, not Ingo, and did so because with kthreads that use
diddly-spit CPU (every one I see), it's just a waste of math. What
kthreads are you seeing using so much CPU that their weight is a factor?
They _should_ be able to preempt and get their work done just fine
without a boost.
> VirtualBox, Vmware, QEMU, Firefox, Azureus, and many subsystems and
> applications began working with large timeouts. In appearance similar to
> hang.
In any case, if it's causing problems, reverting is easy enough, though
better would be to find out the why.
-Mike
--
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