From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Tue Jun 2 20:39:19 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A5F2F96C1 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49c3ml2QL5z3TcB for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 52F262F9A17; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:19 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B792F993D for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49c3mk6x1Bz3Tpx for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E97A822B01 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 052KdI5t011773 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:18 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 052KdI6l011744 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 20:39:18 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f 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 Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:39:18 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: Unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: t.eichstaedt@gmx.net X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:39:19 -0000 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.=