On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 22:10:11 -0400, Evan T Mesterhazy said: > I ran a test by starting five busy processes with a nice level of -10. > Next, I launched ~40 busy processes with a nice level of 0 (all procs were > set to use the same CPU). I expected CFS to expand the period and assign > each process a slice equal to the min granularity. However, the 5 processes > with nice = -10 still used considerably more CPU than the other processes.
Well, it's *expected* that if you set nice = -10 they'll get more CPU. Do you have any evidence that CFS *didn't* give the nice==0 processes a min_granularity slide once in a while?
pgpBr19FzFefR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
