0

I'm writing a program launcher that uses nice to launch X applications with a higher than usual priority and while there's plenty of guides to using nice/renice there's not much discussion about best practise in setting program priorities. I found one site that says going over -10 can be counter-productive as "vital sub-processes" will get less priority than the program relying on them and another saying that -20 is a bad idea but everything else is ok. So my question would be for a single user desktop running word processors/browsers/games/whatever is there a point of diminishing returns or is there any reason why I wouldn't want to default to -19 for any program started by the user? At this point I anticipate it will run on linux kernels but also interested if there's any potential problems on other unices like BSD.

0

The scheduler in Linux has the following policies:

  • SCHED_NORMAL this is used by virtually all of your tasks. The higher priority these tasks are the more scheduling time they get.
  • SCHED_BATCH lower than SCHED_NORMAL in priority.
  • SCHED_IDLE even lower priority than 19 for SCHED_NORMAL.
  • SCHED_FIFO/SCHED_RR are pretty much real-time and have the highest priority on the system. Basically they have no time slices and can run until they terminate.

The documentation for this is here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/scheduler/sched-design-CFS.txt

To understand what is going on with these priorities you need to understand what the scheduler does:

In computing, scheduling is the method by which work specified by some means is assigned to resources that complete the work.

More specifically, CFS is the scheduler you're referring to.

So setting a process to a higher priority means that the scheduler will have a higher preference to that process than lower priority processes.

0

On a single user desktop, there would be not real drawback/risk changing your main application process priority, assuming you are talking about niceness and the nice command and not real-time scheduling.

There would be no real incentive either though for two reasons:

  • Process priority is about CPU usage but the CPU is rarely the bottleneck nowadays, CPU are fast and often multi-core and multi-threaded so there is often enough power to run simultaneously the processes willing to use a CPU, if any.

  • A desktop application is usually interactive so commonly spend a lot of its time waiting for user input, or network I/Os or disk I/Os so changing its priority would make not much difference anyway as its real priority would be raised after these idle periods.

Some cases where that would make a difference is if you launch CPU intensive batch jobs, reducing their priority or raising some other process priority might have a visible impact.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.