Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:27:30 +0200 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity |
| |
At 06:20 PM 8/5/2003 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:12, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 5. August 2003 09:26 schrieb Con Kolivas: > > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:03, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > We do prefer that TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE processes are woken promptly so > > > > they can submit more IO and go back to sleep. Remember that we are > > > > artificially leaving the disk head idle in the expectation that the > > > > task will submit more I/O. It's pretty sad if the CPU scheduler leaves > > > > the anticipated task in the doldrums for five milliseconds. > > > > > > Indeed that has been on my mind. This change doesn't affect how long it > > > takes to wake up. It simply prevents tasks from getting full interactive > > > status during the period they are doing unint. sleep. > > > > If you take that to its logical conclusion, such tasks should be woken > > immediately. Likewise, the io scheduler should be notified when you know > > that the task won't do io or will do other io, like waiting on character > > devices, go paging out or terminate. > >Every experiment I've tried at putting tasks at the start of the queue >instead >of the end has resulted in some form of starvation so should not be possible >for any user task and I've abandoned it.
(ditto:)
- 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/
| |