[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-GNUnet] CPU limiter

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [bug-GNUnet] CPU limiter
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:59:45 -0600
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9

Hmm.  We used to have a simple way to set a nice value using gnunetd.conf -- I 
wonder how that got lost.  Thanks for pointing out that this feature was no 
longer exposed. Anyway, I've added the code back in (most of it was still 
there) in SVN #7705.

The CPU-limiter will stay however; there are some things that the OS can not 
do (like run different code instead of not scheduling a process).  If you 
don't like it, simply set the limit very high (1000%).


On Wednesday 10 September 2008 03:44:23 pm Juho Saarikko wrote:
> I wondered why GNUnet didn't get anything done, until I finally realized
> that I have address@hidden running in the background. Now, Folding is a batch
> job, and so consumes all CPU power available; this is not a problem, since
> I've set it to nice 20, so it doesn't interfere with the rest of the
> system, which is running on nice 0.
> Enter CPU limiter. Since CPU utilization is constantly at 100%, and thus
> over the default limit of 50%, GNUnet scales down its CPU use. Of course
> this doesn't accomplish anything, since the freed CPU cycles will simply be
> used by Folding, keeping CPU usage at 100% and causing GNUnet to back off
> even more. Of course the exact same will happen with any batch job, such as
> a long-running compilation, and at every limit under 100%. So I cranked it
> up to 101% and reniced gnunetd to level 10, after which it began working
> properly.
> Please drop the CPU limiter and use the OS scheduler priority/nice level
> instead. That not only gets rid of this bug, but also leads to less impact
> on latency. Or at least have a way - preferably compile-time - of
> completely disabling the CPU limiter.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]