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    [W:0.050 / U:119.992 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site