Re: CPUs and processes not evenly assigned?!

[mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)]

hubert%feyrer.de@localhost (Hubert Feyrer) writes:

>I tried playing with these, but I didn't see a difference. I didn't fully 
>get the meaning of this - as far as I understand, one extreme (1? 99?) 
>gives much weight to the previous value and avoids switching 
>short-handedly, the other one puts weight on newly occurring processes on 
>a cpu and favors switching. But I'm not sure which is which, and if this 
>is true at all. Yet another magic knob for our scheduler ;)

For the simple "N busy processes" case it probably doesn't make a
difference because current value and average are the same after
a very short time.

The value 100 is a bit pathological as it keeps the historical average
at its last value and ignores the current count.

-- 
-- 
                                Michael van Elst
Internet: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost
                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."