Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:39:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 246940] [wishlist/enhancement, patch incl.]: idle user tasks should be charged as "nice" or "idle" CPU time Message-ID: <bug-246940-227-2w3QWf1dBo@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-246940-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-246940-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D246940 --- Comment #5 from t.eichstaedt@gmx.net --- (In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #2) > Why is it counter-intuitive that user processes are counted in user CPU t= ime? Because the charge classes supplied by cp_times (roughly) reflect the cpu scheduling classes and these are ordered, thus I would assume the cp_times = are implicitely ordered as well: irq, sys, user, nice, idle. The point is that by allowing idle user tasks to be charged as idle in the = load values, they are completely "invisible" (like the kernel idle tasks). To achieve the effect mentioned above w/o this patch (do not scale cpu freq= up on idle user load), a power manager would have to iterate through all idle = user tasks, sum up their cpu times, and compute sythetic load values himself. I consider this counter-effective: consume more user-cpu cycles and - even wo= rse - context switches, to save energy (and noise pollution). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-246940-227-2w3QWf1dBo>