![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Quoting Eric St-Laurent <ericstl34@sympatico.ca>: > i've read that tasks should start at higher dynamic priority with a > small timeslice (a priority boost for a starting task) then immediatly > drop to a lower priority if it use all it's timeslice. There's a scheduler implementation dating pre 1970 that does this and I am led to believe someone is working on an implementation for perhaps 2.7 > > > implemented theory. Changing it up and down by dynamic priority one way and > > > then the other wasn't helpful when I've tried it previously. > > maybe it's because the timeslice calculation is reversed? In my email I said I tried it both ways. Con - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||