Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:48:17 +0200 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: WINE + Galciv + 2.6.0-test3-mm1-O15 |
| |
At 02:44 PM 8/12/2003 -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
>Mike Galbraith wrote: > >>That sounds suspiciously similar to my scenario, but mine requires a >>third element to trigger. >><scritch scritch scritch> >>What about this? In both your senario and mine, X is running low on cash >>while doing work at the request of a client right? Charge for it. >>If X is lower on cash than the guy he's working for, pick the client's >>pocket... take the remainder of your slice from his sleep_avg for your >>trouble. If you're not in_interrupt(), nothing's free. Similar to >>Robinhood, but you take from the rich, and keep it :) He's probably >>going straight to the bank after he wakes you anyway, so he likely won't >>even miss it. Instead of backboost of overflow, which can cause nasty >>problems, you could try backtheft. > > >How is this different from back-boost?
With backboost, you take everything that overflows MAX_SLEEP_AVG and give it all to the waker... you always pull-up. With back-theft (blech;), there's constant pull-up and push-down for all parties instead of only those who reach MAX_SLEEP_AVG, so while you'll still tend to group tasks which are related (the original goal of backboost), it shouldn't (wild theory) go raging out of control.
-Mike
- 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/
| |