Re: Usecases for the per-task latency-nice attribute

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > I don't want to start a bikeshedding session here, but I agree with Parth
> > on the interpretation of the values.
> > 
> > I've always read niceness values as
> > -20 (least nice to the system / other processes)
> > +19 (most nice to the system / other processes)
> > 
> > So following this trend I'd see for latency-nice:
> 
> 
> So jotting down separately, in case if we think to have "latency-nice"
> terminology, then we might need to select one of the 2 interpretation:
> 
> 1).
> > -20 (least nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice latency for throughput)
> > +19 (most nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice throughput for latency)
> > 
> 
> 2).
> -20 (least nice to other task in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-sensitive)
> +19 (most nice to other tasks in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-forgoing)

For the record, interpretation 2 makes sense to me.

									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html