7 ms·
can someone explain to me, isn't it the kernel's responsibility to preempt the CPU-heavy userspace thread (noisy neighbour in our case) after fixed slice of tim
by bieganski 2y ago
can someone explain to me, isn't it the kernel's responsibility to preempt the CPU-heavy userspace thread (noisy neighbour in our case) after fixed slice of time anyway?
- jeffbee 2y agoIf a sleeping low-latency task becomes runnable due to events (network, storage, timers) then ideally it would start running straight away, preempting a throughput-oriented task.
- mrguyorama 2y agoIs this not the case in Linux land? On Windows 7, I could run a CPU based bitcoin miner that pegged every core (including hyperthreads) to 100% and still browse the internet with zero stutter, latency, or slowdown, because the Windows scheduler had no issues giving whatever time was needed by the UI or Window Event processing loop and just feed whatever was leftover to the number crunching app.
- gruez 2y agoI think they have priority boosting for apps that are in focus. It doesn't work for tasks in general though. Network/disk throughout takes a hit when your cpu is pegged, for instance.
- ruthmarx 2y agoPart of that was likely due to Windows doing its graphics at kernel level instead of in userspace.
- justsid 2y agoThis is not true. I frequently run heavy compile jobs on my Windows machine that peg all cores to 100%. If I don’t tell Visual Studio to run the compile tasks with background priority, they will starve the window server of resources a s make interacting with the system incredibly slow. I would not want to use such a machine for browsing.