Hi, On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > yes, the weight multiplier 1.25, but the actual difference in CPU > utilization, when running two CPU intense tasks, is ~10%: > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 8246 mingo 20 0 1576 244 196 R 55 0.0 0:11.96 loop > 8247 mingo 21 1 1576 244 196 R 45 0.0 0:10.52 loop > > so the first task 'wins' +10% CPU utilization (relative to the 50% it > had before), the second task 'loses' -10% CPU utilization (relative to > the 50% it had before). As soon as you add another loop the difference changes again, while it's always correct to say it gets 25% more cpu time (which I still think is a little too much). bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- References:
- x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrea Arcangeli <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- From: James Bruce <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Prev by Date: Re: [rfc][patch 2/2] x86_64: FIFO ticket spinlocks
- Next by Date: Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- Index(es):
 |