On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 03:20:56PM -0300, Ivan Baldo wrote: > The CGROUP infrastructure is the only way to allow runtime configuration > on how the scheduler should work, so some simple DebConf questions could > setup the system as the user wants it (even distribution between users, even > distribution between groups, even distribution for all the processes without > considering groups or users), and even after that, a user or sysadmin could > further configure it.
Which configuration option is removed due to the group scheduler? I fail to find any. > Currently, the FAIR_GROUP_SCHED option is the worst choice, because of 2 > things: > 1 - it forces one behaviour and there is no other way but recompile > the kernel to change it. No. It only extends the scheduler decision with another information. > 2 - it changes a default behaviour used for many years! you may run a > program with nice 19 and SCHED_IDLEPRIO and still consume a lot > of CPU time and starve other processes. Users and sysadmins are > used to the nice command to control priorities of processes > without thinking about groupings by group or user id. Please show that behaviour. By default a system have only one group and within the group the default nice behaviour is used. Between groups the cpu is uniformly distributed. Proove: | $ ps ux | grep test | USER 15850 86.1 0.0 1740 336 pts/6 RN 22:05 0:12 ./test-nice-10 | USER 15851 11.3 0.0 1740 336 pts/6 RN 22:05 0:01 ./test-nice-19 | $ uname -a | Linux HOST 2.6.26-1-powerpc64 #1 SMP Mon Aug 25 00:33:17 UTC 2008 ppc64 GNU/Linux Both processes runs in a cgroup which is restricted to one cpu. Bastian -- You canna change the laws of physics, Captain; I've got to have thirty minutes! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
