On Thursday 24 Sep 2009 11:32:53 Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 09:50:10AM +0100, Clive Messer wrote: > > There is a reason for choosing BATCH (as a default) and not IDLE. I > > alluded to it above. PPD is not affected on a dedicated cruncher with > > BATCH. With IDLE it is reduced by 10%, more with a PREEMPT kernel. > > Yes, that's how SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_IDLE works. And I'm saying I > _want_ SCHED_IDLE behavior on my desktop. Yes, I can patch the client > and rip out the call to sched_setscheduler(), but why make it difficult? > Make it configurable, and I won't complain.
But you will have IDLE if you start the core with IDLE. The call to sched_setscheduler will not increase the CPU task priority to BATCH assuming you run as an unpriv user. It's a noop. You don't need to comment it or rip it out. I thought I made that point already. Just as if you start the core with nice 19, the GPU task priority will not be increased to 10 (the setpriority default for GPU tasks). Maybe I'm missing the point you are trying to make? > The problem with your view is that you only care about the amount of > computing power you can get .... Well, that's not quite how I see it. I care about a good set of defaults for the unwashed masses that maximizes the science produced. I don't have a problem with this either way. I posted a patch to this list which doesn't really have any downside as far as I can see for the majority use case. If the patch is removed from trunk, that's fine by me. Regards Clive -- Clive Messer <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
