Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority scheduling

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

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.