From: Eric Piel <Eric.Piel@lifl.fr>
To: Ken Moffat <ken@kenmoffat.uklinux.net>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ondemand cpufreq ineffective in 2.6.12 ?
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:49:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42D3AE47.7070208@lifl.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507121203450.7944@ppg_penguin.kenmoffat.uklinux.net>
07/12/2005 01:11 PM, Ken Moffat wrote/a écrit:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
>
>> I was going to say that niceness didn't affect what I was doing, but
>>I've just rerun it [ in 2.6.11.9 ] and I see that tar and bzip2 show up
>>with a niceness of 10. I'm starting to feel a bit out of my depth here
>
>
> OK, Con was right, and I didn't initially make the connection.
>
> In 2.6.11, untarring a .tar.bz2 causes tar and bzip2 to run with a
> niceness of 10, but everything is fine.
>
> In 2.6.12, ondemand _only_ has an effect for me in this example if I
> put on my admin hat and renice the bzip2 process (tried 0, that works) -
> renicing the tar process has no effect (obviously, that part doesn't
> push the processor).
>
> So, from a user's point of view it's broken.
Well, it's just the default settings of the kernel which has changed. If
you want the old behaviour, you can use (with your admin hat):
echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice
IMHO it seems quite fair, if you have a process nice'd to 10 it probably
means you are not in a hurry.
Just by couriosity, I wonder how your processes are automatically
reniced to 10 ?
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-12 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-11 16:25 ondemand cpufreq ineffective in 2.6.12 ? Ken Moffat
2005-07-11 19:45 ` Ken Moffat
2005-07-11 21:55 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-12 7:58 ` Eric Piel
2005-07-12 10:37 ` Ken Moffat
2005-07-12 11:11 ` Ken Moffat
2005-07-12 11:49 ` Eric Piel [this message]
2005-07-12 11:52 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-12 14:57 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-12 21:26 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-12 13:30 ` Ken Moffat
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-12 11:07 Daniel J Blueman
2005-07-12 11:35 ` Ken Moffat
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42D3AE47.7070208@lifl.fr \
--to=eric.piel@lifl.fr \
--cc=ken@kenmoffat.uklinux.net \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.