Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priorityscheduling
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Fri Jan 30 2009 - 03:50:50 EST
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 00:49 -0500, Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
>
> 1) Is my problem 'expected' based on others' understanding of the
> current design of the scheduler, or do I have a one-off problem to
> troubleshoot here?
What kernel are you running (or did my eye glance over that detail in
your longish email) ?
> 2) Am I overlooking obvious alternative (but clean) fixes?
Maybe, we fixed a glaring bug in this department recently (or more even,
if you're on older than .28).
> 3) Does anyone else see the need for static, but low process priorities?
Yep, its rather common.
> 4) What is the view of introducing a new scheduler class to handle this?
We should have plenty available, SCHED_IDLE should just work -- as
should nice 19 for that matter.
--
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/