Re: Idle priority
Re: Idle priority
- Subject: Re: Idle priority
- From: Mike Mimic <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 14:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Hi!
--- On Wed, 8/5/09, Terry Lambert <email@hidden> wrote:
> I will point out that the reported real time on the second
> one is very close to 20.0722, double the CPU time, which
> implied that it didn't actually get any CPU time until the
> competing (non-idle priority) process finished, which is
> what you were appeared to be asking to have happen.
I think you misunderstood the results or I have presented them badly. I have been measuring twice "load" program which represents my normal load for which I do not want to have any slowdown while I run my "idle" program in the background on the idle priority.
But results show that there is slowdown. In fact the slowdown is around 100% (real time is 20 seconds instead of 10 seconds) what shows that the "idle" processes have probably not been ran under any decreased priority whatsoever (like my example with nice previous time which showed slight decrease, but still no idle priority decrease).
So proper behavior (as I see it) would be that in both cases my "load" processes would take 10 seconds to complete. Whether there are "idle" processes running (the second case) or not (the first case).
> To get actual time-on-cpu on a per-process basis you'd need
> to examine the thread state structure before the thread
> exits. This is why I suggested you use shark to gather
> the information, back when this thread started.
I doubt that this difference (10 seconds) is the case of me using time instead of Shark.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden