Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O3int interactivity for 2.5.74-mm2 | Date | Wed, 9 Jul 2003 06:54:17 +1000 |
| |
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:12, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:46, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Szonyi Calin wrote: > > > > In the weekend i did some experiments with the defines in > > > > kernel/sched.c It seems that changing in MAX_TIMESLICE the "200" to > > > > "100" or even "50" helps a little bit. (i was able to do a make > > > > bzImage and watch a movie without noticing that is a kernel compile > > > > in background) > > > > > > I bet it helps. Something around 100-120 should be fine. Now we need an > > > exponential function of the priority to assign timeslices to try to > > > maintain interactivity. This should work : > > > > This is still decreasing the timeslices. Whether you do it linearly or > > exponentially the timeslices are smaller, which just about everyone will > > resist you doing. > > Maybe you (and this Mr Everyone) might be interested in knowing that the > interactivity is not given by the absolute length of the timeslice but by > the ratio between timeslices. If you have three processes running with > timeslices : > > A = 400 > B = 200 > C = 100 > > the interactivity is the same of the one if you have : > > A = 100 > B = 50 > C = 25 > > What changes is the maxiomum CPU blackout time that each task has to see > before re-emerging again from the expired array. In the first case in > "only" 700ms while in the first case is 175ms.
and what happens to the throughput?
- 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/
| |