Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:01:20 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |