Re: [test-PATCH] Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level

2001-04-16 Thread george anzinger
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > One rule of optimization is to move any code you can outside the loop. > > > Why isn't the nice_to_ticks calculation done when nice is changed > > > instead of EVERY recalc.? I guess another way to ask this is, who needs >

Re: [test-PATCH] Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level

2001-04-16 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Pavel Machek wrote: > > One rule of optimization is to move any code you can outside the loop. > > Why isn't the nice_to_ticks calculation done when nice is changed > > instead of EVERY recalc.? I guess another way to ask this is, who needs > > This way change is localized

Re: [test-PATCH] Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level

2001-04-16 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > One rule of optimization is to move any code you can outside the loop. > Why isn't the nice_to_ticks calculation done when nice is changed > instead of EVERY recalc.? I guess another way to ask this is, who needs This way change is localized very nicely, and it is "obviously right". --

Re: [test-PATCH] Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level

2001-04-12 Thread Pozsar Balazs
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:53:16PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > OK, here it is. It's nothing like montavista's singing-dancing > > scheduler patch that does all, just a really minimal change that > > should stretch the nice levels to yield the follow

Re: [test-PATCH] Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level

2001-04-11 Thread george anzinger
One rule of optimization is to move any code you can outside the loop. Why isn't the nice_to_ticks calculation done when nice is changed instead of EVERY recalc.? I guess another way to ask this is, who needs to see the original nice? Would it be worth another task_struct entry to move this cal

Re: [test-PATCH] Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level

2001-04-11 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > OK, here it is. It's nothing like montavista's singing-dancing > scheduler patch that does all, just a really minimal change that > should stretch the nice levels to yield the following CPU usage: > > Nice05 10 15 19 > %CPU 100 56 25

[test-PATCH] Re: [QUESTION] 2.4.x nice level

2001-04-11 Thread Rik van Riel
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > I'll try to come up with a recalculation change that will make > this thing behave better, while still retaining the short time > slices for multiple normal-priority tasks and the cache footprint > schedule() and friends currently have... OK, here it is