[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] O(1) scheduler-H6/H7/I0 and nice +19
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?

Ed Tomlinson
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  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