[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252943123.12986.70.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:45:23 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc: pavel@...linux.ru, 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
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 09:12 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 09/14/2009 08:05 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Under heavy network load ksoftirqd can use significant amounts of cpu.
OK, that may justify a weight adjustment, since it is a proxy for many.
Question is, does it really need it?
I certainly have no objection to a heavier weight for any kthread,
though I think it's a waste of cycles for the general case.
-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