[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [SHED] Questions.

    Ian Kumlien wrote:

    >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...

    Search for "Nick's scheduler policy" ;)

    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:0.020 / U:6.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site