Re: [PATCH] O6int for interactivity

From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] O6int for interactivity
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:50:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030718174802.01b168a0@pop.gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200307190024.08571.kernel@kolivas.org>

At 12:24 AM 7/19/2003 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:18, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > At 04:34 PM 7/18/2003 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > That _might_ (add salt) be priorities of kernel threads dropping too low.
>
>Is there any good reason for the priorities of kernel threads to vary at all?
>In the original design they are subject to the same interactivity changes as
>other processes and I've maintained that but I can't see a good reason for it
>and plan to change it unless someone tells me otherwise.

They're so light now days that I never see them change.  I set bonus 
manually to MAX_BONUS/2 in the last numbers posted.

         -Mike 