![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Martin Ohlin wrote: > Maybe I am wrong, but as I see it, if one wants to control on a group > level, then the individual shares within the group are not that > important. If the individual share is important, then it should be > controlled on a per-task level. Please tell me if I am wrong. The individual share within the group may not be important, but the relative priority might be. We have instances were we would like to express something like: --these tasks are all grouped together as "maintenance" tasks, and should be guaranteed 3% of the system together --within the maintenance tasks, my network heartbeat application is the most latency sensitive, so I want it to be higher-priority than the other maintenance tasks From my point of view, task group cpu allocation and relative task priority should be orthogonal. First you pick a task group (based on cpu share, priority, etc.) then within the group you pick the task with highest priority. This was something that CKRM did right (IMHO). Chris - 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: 2006-08-31 16:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||