lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3
hi :)

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:20:34PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> How about something more like this (yeah, untested, but you get the idea):
> the person who wakes up an interactive task gets the interactivity bonus
> if the interactive task is already maxed out. I dunno how well this plays
> with the X server, but assuming most clients use UNIX domain sockets, the
> wake-ups _should_ be synchronous, so it should work well to say "waker
> gets bonus".

i used a similar method to correctly account resource usage
(cpu,energy,..) of processes in my diploma thesis:
work done by a sever (e.g. X) is accounted to the current client,
giving more resources to the server
http://admingilde.org/~martin/papers/

implementation is working but far from being mergeable...




RE: the patch, i think using sleep_avg is a wrong metric from the
beginning.

in addition, timeslices should be shortest for high priority processes
(depending on dynamic prio, not static)

but these are of course just simple statements and i don't have
a patch that makes a really good scheduler :(

--
CU, / Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen, Germany
Martin Waitz // [Tali on IRCnet] [tali.home.pages.de] _________
______________/// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ///
dies ist eine manuell generierte mail, sie beinhaltet //
tippfehler und ist auch ohne grossbuchstaben gueltig. /
-
Wer bereit ist, grundlegende Freiheiten aufzugeben, um sich
kurzfristige Sicherheit zu verschaffen, der hat weder Freiheit
noch Sicherheit verdient. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.148 / U:14.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site