Priority calculation for the “none” I/O scheduling class

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I read the man page of ionice(1), and it says:




For kernels after 2.6.26 with the CFQ I/O scheduler, a process that has not asked for an I/O priority inherits its CPU scheduling class. The I/O priority is derived from the CPU nice level of the process (same as before kernel 2.6.26).




And the calculation of the I/O priority before kernel 2.6.26 is:




io_priority = (cpu_nice + 20) / 5




So I did the following experiments:



root@jacky:~# nice
0
root@jacky:~# sleep 5566 &
[1] 32527
root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32527
none: prio 4
root@jacky:~# ps hp 32527 -o nice
0
root@jacky:~# nice -n -20 sleep 5566 &
[2] 32538
root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32538
none: prio 4
root@jacky:~# ps hp 32538 -o nice
-20


The first process (pid 32527) has the I/O priority of 4, and it's reasonable because (0 + 20) / 5 = 4. The second process (pid 32538) has CPU nice of -20, so it should have I/O priority of (-20 + 20) / 5 = 0. However, it has I/O priority of 4 too.



Can someone explain that for me? Thanks!



p.s. I am using Arch Linux, and my uname -r is 4.13.4-1-ARCH.







share|improve this question
























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I read the man page of ionice(1), and it says:




    For kernels after 2.6.26 with the CFQ I/O scheduler, a process that has not asked for an I/O priority inherits its CPU scheduling class. The I/O priority is derived from the CPU nice level of the process (same as before kernel 2.6.26).




    And the calculation of the I/O priority before kernel 2.6.26 is:




    io_priority = (cpu_nice + 20) / 5




    So I did the following experiments:



    root@jacky:~# nice
    0
    root@jacky:~# sleep 5566 &
    [1] 32527
    root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32527
    none: prio 4
    root@jacky:~# ps hp 32527 -o nice
    0
    root@jacky:~# nice -n -20 sleep 5566 &
    [2] 32538
    root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32538
    none: prio 4
    root@jacky:~# ps hp 32538 -o nice
    -20


    The first process (pid 32527) has the I/O priority of 4, and it's reasonable because (0 + 20) / 5 = 4. The second process (pid 32538) has CPU nice of -20, so it should have I/O priority of (-20 + 20) / 5 = 0. However, it has I/O priority of 4 too.



    Can someone explain that for me? Thanks!



    p.s. I am using Arch Linux, and my uname -r is 4.13.4-1-ARCH.







    share|improve this question






















      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I read the man page of ionice(1), and it says:




      For kernels after 2.6.26 with the CFQ I/O scheduler, a process that has not asked for an I/O priority inherits its CPU scheduling class. The I/O priority is derived from the CPU nice level of the process (same as before kernel 2.6.26).




      And the calculation of the I/O priority before kernel 2.6.26 is:




      io_priority = (cpu_nice + 20) / 5




      So I did the following experiments:



      root@jacky:~# nice
      0
      root@jacky:~# sleep 5566 &
      [1] 32527
      root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32527
      none: prio 4
      root@jacky:~# ps hp 32527 -o nice
      0
      root@jacky:~# nice -n -20 sleep 5566 &
      [2] 32538
      root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32538
      none: prio 4
      root@jacky:~# ps hp 32538 -o nice
      -20


      The first process (pid 32527) has the I/O priority of 4, and it's reasonable because (0 + 20) / 5 = 4. The second process (pid 32538) has CPU nice of -20, so it should have I/O priority of (-20 + 20) / 5 = 0. However, it has I/O priority of 4 too.



      Can someone explain that for me? Thanks!



      p.s. I am using Arch Linux, and my uname -r is 4.13.4-1-ARCH.







      share|improve this question












      I read the man page of ionice(1), and it says:




      For kernels after 2.6.26 with the CFQ I/O scheduler, a process that has not asked for an I/O priority inherits its CPU scheduling class. The I/O priority is derived from the CPU nice level of the process (same as before kernel 2.6.26).




      And the calculation of the I/O priority before kernel 2.6.26 is:




      io_priority = (cpu_nice + 20) / 5




      So I did the following experiments:



      root@jacky:~# nice
      0
      root@jacky:~# sleep 5566 &
      [1] 32527
      root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32527
      none: prio 4
      root@jacky:~# ps hp 32527 -o nice
      0
      root@jacky:~# nice -n -20 sleep 5566 &
      [2] 32538
      root@jacky:~# ionice -p 32538
      none: prio 4
      root@jacky:~# ps hp 32538 -o nice
      -20


      The first process (pid 32527) has the I/O priority of 4, and it's reasonable because (0 + 20) / 5 = 4. The second process (pid 32538) has CPU nice of -20, so it should have I/O priority of (-20 + 20) / 5 = 0. However, it has I/O priority of 4 too.



      Can someone explain that for me? Thanks!



      p.s. I am using Arch Linux, and my uname -r is 4.13.4-1-ARCH.









      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Dec 25 '17 at 2:49









      林自均

      305




      305

























          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer







          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f412878%2fpriority-calculation-for-the-none-i-o-scheduling-class%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest



































          active

          oldest

          votes













          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f412878%2fpriority-calculation-for-the-none-i-o-scheduling-class%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Bahrain

          Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay