Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:51:01 +1100 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: interactive task starvation |
| |
Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 13:59 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >>On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:07:58PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > >>>I can make the knobs compile time so we don't see random behavior >>>reports, but I don't think they can be totally eliminated. Would that >>>be sufficient? >>> >>>If so, the numbers as delivered should be fine for desktop boxen I >>>think. People who are building custom kernels can bend to fit as >>>always. >> >>That would suit me perfectly. I think I would set them both to zero. >>It's not clear to me what workload they can help, it seems that they >>try to allow a sometimes unfair scheduling. > > > Correct. Massively unfair scheduling is what interactivity requires. >
Selective unfairness not massive unfairness is what's required. The hard part is automating the selectiveness especially when there are three quite different types of task that need special treatment: 1) the X server, 2) normal interactive tasks and 3) media streamers; each of which has different behavioural characteristics. A single mechanism that classifies all of these as "interactive" will unfortunately catch a lot of tasks that don't belong to any one of these types.
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |