lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site