[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:03, Martin Waitz wrote:

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

Eh? It is as close to a heuristic of interactivity as I can think of.

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

No, they should be longer. In some cases they should be nearly
infinitely long (which is sort of what we do with the reinsertion into
the active array for highly interactive tasks). We want interactive
tasks to always be able to run.

You may think they need shorter timeslice because they are I/O-bound.
Keep in mind they need not _use_ all their timeslice in one go, and
having a large timeslice ensures they have timeslice available when they
wake up and need to run.

Robert Love

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 13:33    [W:0.174 / U:4.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site