Am Mittwoch 09 September 2009 schrieb Mike Galbraith: > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 19:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 09:55 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 03:37:34PM +0000, tip-bot for Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c > > > > index eb8751a..5fe7099 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/kthread.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c > > > > @@ -16,8 +16,6 @@ > > > > #include <linux/mutex.h> > > > > #include <trace/events/sched.h> > > > > > > > > -#define KTHREAD_NICE_LEVEL (-5) > > > > - > > > > > > Why don't we just redefine it to 0? We may find out later that we'd > > > still prefer to have kernel threads have boost. > > > > Seems sensible, also the traditional reasoning behind this nice level > > is that kernel threads do work on behalf of multiple tasks. Its a > > kind of prio ceiling thing. > > True. None of our current threads are heavy enough to matter much. Does it make sense to have this as a tunable? Where does it matter? Server workloads? (Oh no, not another tunable I can hear you yell;-). -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
|