[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: WINE + Galciv + 2.6.0-test3-mm1-O15
At 02:44 PM 8/12/2003 -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:

>Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>That sounds suspiciously similar to my scenario, but mine requires a
>>third element to trigger.
>><scritch scritch scritch>
>>What about this? In both your senario and mine, X is running low on cash
>>while doing work at the request of a client right? Charge for it.
>>If X is lower on cash than the guy he's working for, pick the client's
>>pocket... take the remainder of your slice from his sleep_avg for your
>>trouble. If you're not in_interrupt(), nothing's free. Similar to
>>Robinhood, but you take from the rich, and keep it :) He's probably
>>going straight to the bank after he wakes you anyway, so he likely won't
>>even miss it. Instead of backboost of overflow, which can cause nasty
>>problems, you could try backtheft.
>How is this different from back-boost?

With backboost, you take everything that overflows MAX_SLEEP_AVG and give
it all to the waker... you always pull-up. With back-theft (blech;),
there's constant pull-up and push-down for all parties instead of only
those who reach MAX_SLEEP_AVG, so while you'll still tend to group tasks
which are related (the original goal of backboost), it shouldn't (wild
theory) go raging out of control.


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 13:47    [W:0.066 / U:1.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site