lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch] O(1) scheduler-H6/H7/I0 and nice +19
Date
On January 15, 2002 08:49 pm, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > The 2.4.17-I0 patch makes things much better here. Does this one
> > suffer from the same bugs that the 2.5.2 version has?
>
> i'll do a -I3 patch in a minute.
>
> > Major difference from older version of the patch is that top shows
> > many processes with PRI 0. I am not sure this is intended?
>
> yes, it's intended. Lots of interactive (idle) tasks. Right now the time
> under which we detect a task as interactive is pretty short, but if you
> run 'top' with 's 0.3' then you can see how tasks grow/shrink their
> priorities, depending on the load they generate.

OK I3 also works fine with respect to my nice test. One thing I do note
and I am not too sure how it might be fixed, is what happens when starting
what will be interactive programs.

Watching with top 's 0.3' I can see them lose priority in the 3-10 seconds it
takes them to setup. This is not that critical if they are the only thing trying
to run. If you have another (not niced) task eating cpu (like a kernel compile)
then intactive startup time suffers. Startup time is wait time that _is_ noticed
by users.

Is there some way we could tell the scheduler or the scheduler could learn that
a given _program_ is usually interactive so it should wait at bit (10 seconds on my
box would work) before starting to increase its priority numbers?

TIA
Ed Tomlinson
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.047 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site