Hi, On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > As soon as you add another loop the difference changes again, while > > it's always correct to say it gets 25% more cpu time [...] > > yep, and i'll add the relative effect to the comment too. Why did you cut off the rest of the sentence? To illustrate the problem a little different: a task with a nice level -20 got around 700% more cpu time (or 8 times more), now it gets 8500% more cpu time (or 86.7 times more). You don't think that change to the nice levels is a little drastic? 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: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- 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:
- 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]>
- Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] CFS: Fix missing digit off in wmult table
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH/RFC] msleep() with hrtimers
- Next by Date: Re: SMART problems in 2.6.22
- 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):