Re: A nice CPU resource controller

[Peter Williams]

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>
> > But your implication here is valid.  It is better to fiddle with the 
> > dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary 
> > purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU 
> > resources based on external considerations.
>
> I don't understand.  It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based
> on external considerations.  It just steadies the administrator's hand.

Not exactly.  If "nice" is being (automatically) fiddled to meet some 
measurable requirement such as the amount of CPU tasks get it is no 
longer available as a means for the indication of the relative 
importance of the tasks.  I.e. it can't be both the means for saying 
which tasks should be allocated the most CPU and the means by which that 
allocation is controlled.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/