[vdr] Re: qestion about thread priorities-> suggestion

[Guido Fiala <gfiala@s.netic.de>]

Am Samstag, 14. Februar 2004 16:27 schrieb Stefan Huelswitt:
> On 15 Feb 2004 Guido Fiala <gfiala@s.netic.de> wrote:
> > However - this does not set the "nice-value" but the priority of the
> > thread, the posix-interface seems not to know about "nice"
> >
> > Actually it did not result in a noticeable change, using top i could'nt
> > even prove that the priority has actuall been changed.
> >
> > Interesting enough not even calling a nice(19) in the cutting-thread did
> > actually help here (although it is now visible set according to top).
>
> The cutting process doesn't takes much CPU cycles but causes IO
> load. You cannot "nice" IO load. And most desktop systems using

You are fully right! That explains why there is no visible "nice" load.

> IDE drives have a bad system responsivity when the full IO
> bandwidth is used (even with UDMA enabled).

That sounds as if SCSI has still an advantage here? :-(

>
> To improve the situation VDR would have to throttle the disk accesses by
> it self.

So adding a usleep() in the loop might help?




-- 
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to ecartis@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe vdr" as subject.