![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 13:30 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: >> What about the batch tasks? How do you ensure that they don't get >> starved? Remember they're "batch" tasks not "background" tasks. >>> > Here, batch means background. To make them batch as in only static > priority, I'd just do away with the second array. Batch as background > makes more sense to me, and since it's my ball and my playground... ;-) > In reality, both batch and background are useful distinct concepts. I think of a batch task as one that needs to be treated fairly (in accordance with its nice value) but for which fairness shouldn't be broken to give it a boost as you might for an interactive task or media streamer. I.e. doing useful work but not interactive or a media streamer and the occasional long latency isn't a disaster. Background tasks are ones where you don't care if they ever get any cpu :-) except as necessary to prevent priority inversion. In my schedulers I generalize background to "soft cpu rate caps" with a cap of zero being the same as background. I have patches to add both soft and hard cpu rate caps to the standard scheduler but I'm sitting on them until things settle down a bit. Anyway, schedulers based on single priority arrays (such as staircase) are looking more attractive every day. :-) 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: 2006-05-22 07:40 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||