Hi again, On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 14:20 -0500, Joe Shaw wrote: > > choosing another scheduling policy (like sched_batch) is a > > bit better, as a sched_batch process will use 0% cpu in presence of > > another process trying to get 100% cpu. > > I looked into this today, and this isn't how the SCHED_BATCH policy > works on Linux (at least with 2.6.20). Indeed doing so would cause an > issue with priority inversion, since a blocked process could hold some > resource while another process spun. > > SCHED_BATCH simply drops the sleep interval calculation, which > determines the bonus (between -5 and +5) on top of your nice value, and > automatically gives your process a -5 bonus.
Oops, sorry, typo. I meant it would automatically get a +5 bonus. So, to recap... :) Something run with SCHED_BATCH at nice 0 would act as though it were run at +5. With SCHED_OTHER it would be anywhere from -5 to +5 depending on interactivity. SCHED_BATCH is a bad name considering the older (inversion-prone) implementation. A better name would be SCHED_FIXED. Joe _______________________________________________ Dashboard-hackers mailing list Dashboard-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dashboard-hackers