Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priorityscheduling

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Friday 2009-01-30 06:49, Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
>
>I have done a bit of research on how the kernel scheduler works, and
>why I am seeing this behavior. I had previously, apparently
>ignorantly, equated 'nice 19' with being akin to Microsoft Windows'
>'idle' thread priority, and assumed it would never steal CPU cycles
>from a process with a higher(lower, depending on nomenclature)
>priority. [...]
>
>One[...] is to alter the semantics of nice 19 such that it does not
>boost. Since this would break existing assumptions and code, I do
>not think it is feasible. [...] Finally, new scheduling classes
>could be introduced[...]

Surprise. There is already SCHED_BATCH (intended for computing tasks
as I gathered) and SCHED_IDLE (for idle stuff).



>Please make the obvious substitution to my email address in order to 
>bypass the spam-killer.

(Obviously this is not obvious... there are no 'nospam' keywords or 
similar in it that could be removed.)
--
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/