lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.096 / U:1.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site