Re: Fwd: Nice processes prevent frequency increases - possible scheduler regression (known good in 2.6.35)

2012-11-05 Thread Chris Friesen
On 11/03/2012 09:40 AM, Michal Zatloukal wrote: On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 04:33 -0700, Mike Galbraith wrote: On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:09 +0100, Michal Zatloukal wrote: Your nice 19 tasks receiving 'too much' CPU when there are other runnabl

Re: Fwd: Nice processes prevent frequency increases - possible scheduler regression (known good in 2.6.35)

2012-11-03 Thread Michal Zatloukal
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 04:33 -0700, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:09 +0100, Michal Zatloukal wrote: >> >> > On the new kernel, the nice processes are never starved - even when >> > starting a tab-laden chromium session, th

Re: Fwd: Nice processes prevent frequency increases - possible scheduler regression (known good in 2.6.35)

2012-11-03 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 04:33 -0700, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:09 +0100, Michal Zatloukal wrote: > > > On the new kernel, the nice processes are never starved - even when > > starting a tab-laden chromium session, the processes for BOINC keep > > about 20% CPU each (that is n

Re: Fwd: Nice processes prevent frequency increases - possible scheduler regression (known good in 2.6.35)

2012-11-03 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:09 +0100, Michal Zatloukal wrote: > On the new kernel, the nice processes are never starved - even when > starting a tab-laden chromium session, the processes for BOINC keep > about 20% CPU each (that is normalized to all CPUs, ie 40% nice load > on each core). The problem