Interesting, thanks Rik. I assumed that couldn't be correct, since it would result in lower priority tasks receiving a slice less than the sysctl_sched_min_granularity - which I assumed CFS explicitly aims to prevent.
Thanks for taking a look. On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:51 AM Valdis Klētnieks <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > -- Evan Mesterhazy [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
