Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:12:32 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:00, Timothy Miller wrote: > >>If my guess from my previous email was correct (that is pri 5 gets >>shorter timeslide than pri 6), then that means that tasks of higher >>static priority have are penalized more than lower pri tasks for expiring. >> >>Say a task has to run for 15ms. If it's at a priority that gives it a >>10ms timeslice, then it'll expire and get demoted. If it's at a >>priority that gives it a 20ms timeslice, then it'll not expire and >>therefore get promoted. >> >>Is that fair? > > > Yes, it's a simple cutoff at the end of the timeslice. If you use up the > timeslice allocated to you, then you have to pass a test to see if you can go > onto the active array or get expired. Since higher static priority (lower > nice) tasks get longer timeslices, they are less likely to expire unless they > are purely cpu bound and never sleep.
Ok, I'm just a little confused, because of this inversion of "high priority" with "low numbers".
First, am I correct in understanding that a lower number means a higher priority?
And for a higher priority, in addition to begin run before all tasks of lower priority, they also get a longer timeslice?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |