On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 07:14:47PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 09:23:37AM +0000: > > > The consequence of that is it takes much longer to complete because the > > > clock is down: what previously normally took ~55s real for ~27s of CPU > > > time now takes 7m10 for 85s of CPU time -- but honestly I don't care how > > > long this takes if it's not noticeable, this is perfect. Thanks again! > > > > That's a really long time… 55/27 s seems fairly standard, e.g. I get 43/22 s > > with a 256 GB SATA disk. But 440/85 s is quite a bit worse. > > I really don't think it matters: this is a background job. It matters in the sense that the total energy consumption will be higher. I don't think we should try to work around hardware issues at the level of individual programs trying to influence decisions. This can never work, except as a local hack for some issue. > > > I would have suggested also adding Nice=5 or something but I don't think > > > it's required with this. > > > > I think that with IOSchedulingClass=idle, niceness doesn't matter anymore. > > Hmm, I'm not sure what makes you think that. Brainfart, I was thinking about CPUSchedulingPolicy=. I think it would make sense to set CPUSchedulingPolicy=batch. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
