Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:55:41 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller | From | Hirokazu Takahashi <> |
| |
Hi,
> On Friday 28 April 2006 22:07, MAEDA Naoaki wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > I agree with Mike here. It's either global resource management or it > > > isn't. If one user is using all interactive tasks and the other user none > > > it's unfair resource management. > > > > My intention was not to hurt interactive task's response, but it seems > > that just ignoring interactive tasks is not good. I'll consider > > regulating interactive tasks also. > > I appreciate the gesture of concern over interactive tasks :-) Unfortunately > it doesn't change the fact that interactive tasks can also consume large > proportions of the resources, and that any interactivity estimator will get > it wrong on occasion and flag a non interactive task as interactive.
I think you can introduce some threshold to estimate whether a process should be treated as an interactive process or not while vanilla kernel defines it statically. It will make processes in a resource group consuming large cpu-time hard to be treated as interactive processes.
Thanks, Hirokazu Takahashi.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |