public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH][RSDL-mm 4/6] sched: dont renice kernel threads
@ 2007-03-16 13:54 Con Kolivas
  2007-03-16 15:14 ` Chris Friesen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2007-03-16 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux kernel mailing list, ck list, Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar

The practice of renicing kernel threads to negative nice values is of
questionable benefit at best, and at worst leads to larger latencies when
kernel threads are busy on behalf of other tasks.

Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>

---
 kernel/workqueue.c |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/workqueue.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2.orig/kernel/workqueue.c	2007-03-16 23:27:49.000000000 +1100
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc3-mm2/kernel/workqueue.c	2007-03-16 23:27:51.000000000 +1100
@@ -294,7 +294,6 @@ static int worker_thread(void *__cwq)
 	if (!cwq->wq->freezeable)
 		current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
 
-	set_user_nice(current, -5);
 	/*
 	 * We inherited MPOL_INTERLEAVE from the booting kernel.
 	 * Set MPOL_DEFAULT to insure node local allocations.

-- 
-ck

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 4/6] sched: dont renice kernel threads
  2007-03-16 13:54 [PATCH][RSDL-mm 4/6] sched: dont renice kernel threads Con Kolivas
@ 2007-03-16 15:14 ` Chris Friesen
  2007-03-16 21:29   ` Con Kolivas
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Friesen @ 2007-03-16 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Con Kolivas
  Cc: linux kernel mailing list, ck list, Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar

Con Kolivas wrote:
> The practice of renicing kernel threads to negative nice values is of
> questionable benefit at best, and at worst leads to larger latencies when
> kernel threads are busy on behalf of other tasks.

What about the priority implications of the renicing?  It seems a bit 
iffy letting kernel threads compete for cpu time on an equal basis with 
your default shell.

Chris

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 4/6] sched: dont renice kernel threads
  2007-03-16 15:14 ` Chris Friesen
@ 2007-03-16 21:29   ` Con Kolivas
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2007-03-16 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Friesen
  Cc: linux kernel mailing list, ck list, Andrew Morton, Ingo Molnar

On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:14, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > The practice of renicing kernel threads to negative nice values is of
> > questionable benefit at best, and at worst leads to larger latencies when
> > kernel threads are busy on behalf of other tasks.
>
> What about the priority implications of the renicing?  It seems a bit
> iffy letting kernel threads compete for cpu time on an equal basis with
> your default shell.

Lots of things we do because we just assume they're a good idea without any 
evidence. Renicing kernel threads was always considered a good idea on this 
basis. I'm certain noone has ever proven that it's a good thing though. 
Either way, the latest version of rsdl is robust enough that it works fine 
with reniced kernel threads if you still believe that's advantageous. This is 
definitely open for discussion/opinion.

-- 
-ck

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-16 21:16 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-16 13:54 [PATCH][RSDL-mm 4/6] sched: dont renice kernel threads Con Kolivas
2007-03-16 15:14 ` Chris Friesen
2007-03-16 21:29   ` Con Kolivas

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