On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 10:47 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > > To illustrate the problem a little different: a task with a nice level -20 > > got around 700% more cpu time (or 8 times more), now it gets 8500% more > > cpu time (or 86.7 times more). > > Ingo, that _does_ sound excessive. > > How about trying a much less aggressive nice-level (and preferably linear, > not exponential)?
I actually like the extra range, it allows for a much softer punch of background tasks even on somewhat slower boxen. I've been testing CFS on my 1200 MHz lappy for some time and a strongly niced kbuild leaves a very usable system. The old scheduler would leave the thing rather jumpy. And while CFS fully fixes the jumpyness, I just did a nice +13 (which should be equivalent to the old schedulers nice +19 for my HZ) and did a nice +19 kbuild and I can definitely feel the difference between them. Early CFS versions had an pretty aggressive nice range (0.1% for +19), and that has been toned down based on feedback. The current levels seem to work well, at least on my boxen. - Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
