![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In linux-kernel, Rik van Riel wrote: >Please take a look at VSTa. It's had a tree scheduler >right from the start. It's a very nice and simple scheduler, >but response times aren't yet very good (haven't checked the >latest version though). You forgot to give a pointer, so I did a bit of searching and found this one: http://www.chat.net/~jeske/VSTa/ (in case somebody else is interested) [SCHED_LATENCY] >It would be quite good. Except for one problem: every >user will want to run each of his/her processes with >this priority to get better response times :-) >This might nullify the effect :-( Hmpfh, this needs more thought.. In any case, this priority would be useful even if it were root-only, because it's kind of "safe semi-realtime" priority. Maybe root could do more fine-tuning, i.e. set the time-slice limits for individual SCHED_LATENCY processes (in case you are on your personal machine and want to give mpg123 some priority but not so much that it'll halt everything else). >> SCHED_BATCH could also be good, it would also be just under the > >Excellent idea... But what do you do when a SCHED_BATCH >process blocks because of a pagefault? >You wouldn't want to bring in another SCHED_BATCH process >then, would you? Something else (not SCHED_BATCH process) could be run, if possible. If not.. :/ This needs more thought, too.. >Maybe a normal (ie: as found in other unices) swap daemon >(ie: true swapping) solve this problem far better? What does the swap daemon do? I haven't used other unices much.. -- The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying. | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41 [W:0.156 / U:0.330 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||