On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 06:29:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 05-11-18 11:55:45, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > Michal, you mentioned that ktask should be sensitive to CPU utilization[1]. > > ktask threads now run at the lowest priority on the system to avoid disturbing > > busy CPUs (more details in patches 4 and 5). Does this address your concern? > > The plan to address your other comments is explained below. > > I have only glanced through the documentation patch and it looks like it > will be much less disruptive than the previous attempts. Now the obvious > question is how does this behave on a moderately or even busy system > when you compare that to a single threaded execution. Some numbers about > best/worst case execution would be really helpful. Patches 4 and 5 have some numbers where a ktask and non-ktask workload compete against each other. Those show either 8 ktask threads on 8 CPUs (worst case) or no ktask threads (best case). By single threaded execution, I guess you mean 1 ktask thread. I'll run the experiments that way too and post the numbers. > I will look closer later. Great! Thanks for your comment. Daniel
