[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject[NOTAPATCH] Re: [PATCH] O6int for interactivity
At 05:21 PM 7/20/2003 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >Everything that will make the scheduler to say "ok, I gave enough time to
> > >interactive tasks, now I'm really going to spin one from the masses" will
> > >work. Having a clean solution would not be an option here.
> >
> > ... just as soon as I get my decidedly unclean work-around functioning at
> > least as well as it did for plain old irman. irman2 is _much_ more evil
> > than irman ever was (wow, good job!). I thought it'd be a half an hour
> > tops. This little bugger shows active starvation, expired starvation,
> > priority inflation, _and_ interactive starvation (i have to keep inventing
> > new terms to describe things i see.. jeez this is a good testcase).
>Yes, the problem is not only the expired tasks starvation. Anything in
>the active array that reside underneath the lower priority value of the
>range irman2 tasks oscillate inbetween, will experience a "CPU time eclipse".
>And you do not even need a smoked glass to look at it :)

I think I whipped the obnoxious little bugger. Comments on the attached
[kiss] approach?

I don't like what gpm tells me while irman2 is running with this diff, but
hiccup hiccup is a heck of lot better than terminal starvation.

-Mike [unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.075 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site