Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:17:40 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [SHED] Questions. |
| |
Ian Kumlien wrote:
>Hi, > >I'll risk sounding like a moron again =) > >I still wonder about the counter intuitive quantum value for >processes... (or timeslice if you will) > >Why not use small quantum values for high pri processes and long for low >pri since the high pri processes will preempt the low pri processes >anyways. And for a server working under load with only a few processes >(assuming they are all low pri) would lessen the context switches. > >And a system with "interactive load" as well would, as i said, preempt >the lower pris. But this could also cause a problem... Imho there should >be a "min quantum value" so that processes can't preempt a process that >was just scheduled (i dunno if this is implemented already though). > >Imho this would also make it easy to get the right pri for highpri >processes since the quantum value is smaller and if you use it all up >you get demoted. > >Anyways, I've been wondering about the inverted values in the scheduler >and for a mixed load/server load i don't see the benefit... =P > >PS. Do not forget to CC me since i'm not on this list... >DS. >
Search for "Nick's scheduler policy" ;)
- 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/
| |