[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:3.462 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site