![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 16:32 -0700, Tim Chen wrote: >> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 09:45 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: >> >>> Yes it's only designed to detect something that has been asleep for an >>> arbitrary long time and "categorised as idle"; it is not supposed to be a >>> priority stepping stone for everything, in this case at MAX_BONUS-1. Mike >>> proposed doing this instead, but it was never my intent. >> It seems like just one sleep longer than INTERACTIVE_SLEEP is needed >> kick the priority of a process all the way to MAX_BONUS-1 and boost the >> sleep_avg, regardless of what the prior sleep_avg was. >> >> So if there is a cpu hog that has long sleeps occasionally, once it woke >> up, its priority will get boosted close to maximum, likely starving out >> other processes for a while till its sleep_avg gets reduced. This >> behavior seems like something to avoid according to the original code >> comment. Are we boosting the priority too quickly? > > The answer to that is, sometimes yes, and when it bites, it bites hard. > Happily, most hogs don't sleep much, and we don't generally have lots of > bursty sleepers. > But it's easy for a malicious user to exploit. Yes? 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-05-17 06:48 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||