> eatcpu is a simple cpu hog ("for(;;);"). Dual CPU i386.
>
> $nice -19 ./eatcpu&;
> <wait>
> $nice -19 ./eatcpu&;
> <wait>
> $./eatcpu&.
>
> IMHO it should be
> * both niced process run on one cpu.
> * the non-niced process runs with a 100% timeslice.
>
> But it's the other way around:
> One niced process runs with 100%. The non-niced process with 50%, and
> the second niced process with 50%.
Rusty and I were talking about this recently. Would it make sense for
the load balancer to use a weighted queue length (sum up all priorities
in the queue?) instead of just balancing the queue length?
Anton
-
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 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:49 EST