From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Afzal Mohammed Subject: Re: RFC: documentation of the autogroup feature [v2] Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 18:22:46 +0530 Message-ID: <20161125125246.GA7600@afzalpc> References: <41d802dc-873a-ff02-17ff-93ce50f3e925@gmail.com> <1479901185.4306.38.camel@gmx.de> <327586fa-4672-d070-0ded-850654586273@gmail.com> <1479915229.4306.106.camel@gmx.de> <7513b0a5-c5d0-3a92-5849-995af22601e4@gmail.com> <1479921075.4306.153.camel@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-man , lkml , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:41:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Suppose that there are two autogroups competing for the same > CPU. The first group contains ten CPU-bound processes from a > kernel build started with make -j10. The other contains a sin‐ > gle CPU-bound process: a video player. The effect of auto‐ > grouping is that the two groups will each receive half of the > CPU cycles. That is, the video player will receive 50% of the > CPU cycles, rather just 9% of the cycles, which would likely ^^^^ than ? Regards afzal > lead to degraded video playback. Or to put things another way: > an autogroup that contains a large number of CPU-bound pro‐ > cesses does not end up overwhelming the CPU at the expense of > the other jobs on the system.