lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Problem with the O(1) scheduler in 2.4.19
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:

> 3. More than 90% of all tasks in a system are classified as interactive at
> any given time (since they are sleeping). For example all cron jobs
> are classified as interactive, which sounds really strange. IMHO, it's
> a good example of a non-interactive background job. (I'll run my crond
> at nice 19 for now.)
>
> I'm curious, why are you using the process average sleep time to
> determine interactiveness and not the presense of prematurely abandoned
> timeslices?

I'll ask that, too. Not because I doubt you have a good reason, but
because it doesn't jump out at me. I would like the CPU to go to the
process most likely to start an i/o and block, so the CPU hog can run
while the i/o takes place, because that seems to get the highest overlap
of CPU and i/o. I assume the current scheduler that as one of the goal,
clearly not the only one.

A few words of clarification would be educational.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

-
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 13:28    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans