At Sunday 27 January 2008 Mike Galbraith wrote : > > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 13:39 +0100, Toralf Förster wrote: > > Ough, does this mean that for a multi-user scenario of 2 non-root users "A" > > and > > "B" each running exactly 1 process with nice level 0 and 19 rerspectively > > that both share ~50% of the CPU *and furthermore* that that user "B" does > > never > > ever have a chance to be nice to user "A" although his process should > > really > > use only those CPU cycles not eated by any other user ? > > Yes. If you want one task group to receive less cpu cycles, you have to > 'nice' that task group by reducing it's share.
> I think it's better to just disable fair group scheduling if it doesn't > suit your needs. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. Yes, disabling this kernel option is much better for me as a notebook user. BTW t I've one more question related to this topic: Is it correct that within the scenario described above user "A" never gets more than 50% of the CPU as soon as user "B" is logged into the system (because of the login process itself) ? > -Mike > -- MfG/Sincerely Toralf Förster pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
