[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Feature proposal (scheduling related) -- conclusion
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:28:50 +0300,  said:

> great, I had no idea of this potential. But what I propose is scheduling the
> network traffic (at least the outgoing traffic that we can influence directly)
> according to the process priority, not according to the traffic type (which is
> important but different).

So you want to use a number that controls the CPU scheduling to force the network
scheduling to go along? That's a bad idea waiting to happen.

(Hint - some program is getting CPU-starved for some reason, so you 'nice -2' it
to make it run tolerably. Suddenly your icecast gets stomped on. Whoops)

It's even worse if you're trying to use dynamic priorities - then your icecast
can get pushed to the bottom of the network pile because some other process
went super-interactive for a while...

Remember - you're trying to optimize the "network experience" for the
*connection*. Base it on the port numbers, or use the process's UID and run
your program under a seperate UID, or maybe a PID-based scheme, with an ioctl()
or /{proc,sys} based control....

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.042 / U:0.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site