On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> SodaPop wrote:
> >
> > I too have noticed that nicing processes does not work nearly as
> > effectively as I'd like it to. I run on an underpowered machine,
> > and have had to stop running things such as seti because it steals too
> > much cpu time, even when maximally niced.
> In kernel/sched.c for HZ < 200 an adjustment of nice to tick is set up
> to be nice>>2 (i.e. nice /4). This gives the ratio of nice to time
> slice. Adjustments are made to make the MOST nice yield 1 jiffy, so
[snip 2.4 nice scale is too limited]
I'll try to come up with a recalculation change that will make
this thing behave better, while still retaining the short time
slices for multiple normal-priority tasks and the cache footprint
schedule() and friends currently have...
[I've got some vague ideas ... give me a few hours to put them
into code ;)]
regards,
Rik
-- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 21:00:13 EST