Messages in this thread |  | | From | Ed Tomlinson <> | | Subject | Re: [patch] O(1) scheduler-H6/H7/I0 and nice +19 | | Date | Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:44:51 -0500 |
| |
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/
|  |