From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030668AbXDPOft (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:35:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030672AbXDPOft (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:35:49 -0400 Received: from [212.12.190.15] ([212.12.190.15]:33002 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030668AbXDPOfs (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:35:48 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Peter Williams Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:38:47 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200704150931.42268.a1426z@gawab.com> <200704161342.34498.a1426z@gawab.com> <46237483.6010801@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <46237483.6010801@bigpond.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704161738.47956.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Peter Williams wrote: > Al Boldi wrote: > > Reducing the prio-level granularity may also be helpful; > > Because of some of the bit operations code makes it a bad idea to have > more than 160 priority levels, you're more or less limited to 60 > priority levels for SCHED_OTHER tasks (as 100 are used for real time) > and you need 40 of these to pay some attention to niceness leaving you > about 20 priority levels to use for fiddling. Is that enough? > > With spa_ebs (now that CPU rate caps have been removed), you have all 60 > priorities available for fiddling with as niceness is taken care of when > calculating each task's entitlement. Ok, increasing the number of prio-levels is one thing, but I was more thinking of reducing the effective difference between each prio-level. For example, this would allow max_tpt_bonus=18, while the effective range would be 3, thus reducing granularity. Would this be easily introduceable? Thanks! -- Al