On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 07:14:47PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 09:23:37AM
+0000:
> > The consequence of that is it takes much longer to complete because the
> > clock is down: what previously normally took ~55s real for ~27s of CPU
> > time now takes 7m10 for 85s of CPU time -- but honestly I don't care how
> > long this takes if it's not noticeable, this is perfect. Thanks again!
>
> That's a really long time… 55/27 s seems fairly standard, e.g. I get 43/22 s
> with a 256 GB SATA disk. But 440/85 s is quite a bit worse.
I really don't think it matters: this is a background job.
It matters in the sense that the total energy consumption will be higher.
I don't think we should try to work around hardware issues at the
level of individual programs trying to influence decisions. This can
never work, except as a local hack for some issue.
> > I would have suggested also adding Nice=5 or something but
I don't think
> > it's required with this.
>
> I think that with IOSchedulingClass=idle, niceness doesn't matter anymore.
Hmm, I'm not sure what makes you think that.
Brainfart, I was thinking about CPUSchedulingPolicy=. I think it would
make sense to set CPUSchedulingPolicy=batch.
Zbyszek