[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [SHED] Questions.
    On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 18:41, Ian Kumlien wrote:

    > hummm, I assume that a high pri process can preempt a low pri process...
    > The rest sounds sane to me =), Please tell me what i'm missing.. =)

    No no. The rule is "the highest priority process with timeslice
    remaining runs" not just "the highest priority process runs."

    Otherwise, timeslice wouldn't matter much!

    When a process exhausts its timeslice, it is moved to the "expired"
    list. When all currently running tasks expire their timeslice, the
    scheduler begins servicing from the "expired" list (which then becomes
    the "active" list, and the old active list becomes the expired).

    This implies that a high priority, which has exhausted its timeslice,
    will not be allowed to run again until _all_ other runnable tasks
    exhaust their timeslice (this ignores the reinsertion into the active
    array of interactive tasks, but that is an optimization that just
    complicates this discussion).

    If timeslices did not play a role, then high priority tasks would always
    monopolize the system.

    This is a classic priority-based round-robin scheduler.

    > > Once a task exhausts its timeslice, it cannot run until all other tasks
    > > exhaust their timeslice. If this were not the case, high priority tasks
    > > could monopolize the system.
    > All other? including sleeping?... How many tasks can be assumed to run
    > on the cpu at a time?....

    I wasn't clear: all other _runnable_ tasks.

    Once a task "expires" (exhausts its timeslice), it will not run again
    until all other tasks, even those of a lower priority, exhaust their

    This is a major difference between normal tasks and real-time tasks.

    > Should preempt send the new quantum value to all "low pri, high quantum"
    > processes?

    I don't follow this?

    > Damn thats a tough cookie, i still think that the priority inversion is
    > bad. Don't know enough about this to actually provide a solution...
    > Any one else that has a view point?

    Priority inversion is bad, but the priority inversion in this case is
    intended. Higher priority tasks cannot starve lower ones. It is a
    classic Unix philosophy that 'all tasks make some forward progress'

    If you need to guarantee that a task always runs when runnable, you want

    If you just want to give a scheduling boost, to ensure greater
    runnability, lower latency, and larger timeslices... nice values

    > Hummm, the skips in xmms tells me that something is bad..
    > (esp since it works perfectly on the previus scheduler)

    A lot of this is just the interactivity estimator making the wrong

    > Since it's rescheduled after a short runtime or, might be.
    > From someones mail i saw (afair), there was much more context switches
    > in 2.6 than in 2.4. And each schedule consumes time and cycles.

    Context switches (as in process to process changes) should be about the

    Interrupt frequency has gone up in x86 (1000 vs 100). Maybe that is
    what they are seeing.

    > Oh yes, but otoh, if you are really keen on the latency then you'll do
    > realtime =)

    Agreed. But at the same time, not every "interactive" task should be
    real-time. In fact, nearly all should not. I do not want my text
    editor or mailer to be RT, for example.

    They just need a scheduling boost.

    Robert Love

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.022 / U:2.208 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site