On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2002, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> > Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> writes:
> >
> > > a still lower ts
> >
> > This also lowers the effectiveness of nice values. In 2.5.2-pre6, if I
> > run two cpu hogs at nice values 0 and 19 respectively, the niced task
> > will get approximately 20% cpu time (on x86 with HZ=100) and this
> > patch will give even more cpu time to the niced task. Isn't 20% too
> > much?
>
> The problem is that with HZ == 100 you don't have enough granularity
> to correctly scale down nice time slices. Shorter time slices helps
> the interactive feel that's why i'm pushing for this.
So don't give the niced task a new timeslice each time,
but only once in a while.
regards,
Rik
-- Shortwave goes a long way: irc.starchat.net #swlhttp://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- 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 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:21 EST