From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching From: Lee Revell In-Reply-To: <200603081312.51058.kernel@kolivas.org> References: <200603081013.44678.kernel@kolivas.org> <200603081228.05820.kernel@kolivas.org> <1141783711.767.121.camel@mindpipe> <200603081312.51058.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:18:14 -0500 Message-Id: <1141784295.767.126.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Con Kolivas Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org List-ID: On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 13:12 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:08 pm, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 12:28 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > I can't distinguish between when cpu activity is important (game) and > > > when it is not (compile), and assuming worst case scenario and not doing > > > any swap prefetching is my intent. I could add cpu accounting to > > > prefetch_suitable() instead, but that gets rather messy and yielding > > > achieves the same endpoint. > > > > Shouldn't the game be running with RT priority or at least at a low nice > > value? > > No way. Games run nice 0 SCHED_NORMAL. Maybe this is a stupid/OT question (answer off list if you think so) but why not? Isn't that the standard way of telling the scheduler that you have a realtime constraint? It's how pro audio stuff works which I would think has similar RT requirements. How is the scheduler supposed to know to penalize a kernel compile taking 100% CPU but not a game using 100% CPU? Lee -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org