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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox