![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Al Boldi wrote: > Peter Williams wrote: >> Al Boldi wrote: >>> Reducing the prio-level granularity may also be helpful; >> Because of some of the bit operations code makes it a bad idea to have >> more than 160 priority levels, you're more or less limited to 60 >> priority levels for SCHED_OTHER tasks (as 100 are used for real time) >> and you need 40 of these to pay some attention to niceness leaving you >> about 20 priority levels to use for fiddling. Is that enough? >> >> With spa_ebs (now that CPU rate caps have been removed), you have all 60 >> priorities available for fiddling with as niceness is taken care of when >> calculating each task's entitlement. > > Ok, increasing the number of prio-levels is one thing, but I was more > thinking of reducing the effective difference between each prio-level. For > example, this would allow max_tpt_bonus=18, while the effective range would > be 3, thus reducing granularity. Would this be easily introduceable? OK. Now (I think) I see what you mean. I think that you could achieve this effect by shortening the promotion interval which I think is still one of the tunables. This effectively controls the strength of priority levels -- short promotion intervals weaken and long promotion intervals strengthen the effect of different priority levels. 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: 2007-04-17 02:45 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||