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 05:57, Timothy Miller wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually the timeslice handed out is purely dependent on the static
>>>priority, not the priority it is elevated or demoted to by the
>>>interactivity estimator. However lower priority tasks (cpu bound ones if
>>>the estimator has worked correctly) will always be preempted by higher
>>>priority tasks (interactive ones) whenever they wake up.
>>>
>>>
>>Ok, so tasks at priority, say, 5 are all run before any tasks at
>>priority 6, but when a priority 6 task runs, it gets a longer timeslice?
>>
>>
>
>All "nice" 0 tasks get the same size timeslice. If their dynamic priority is
>different (the PRI column in top) they still get the same timeslice.
>
>

Why isn't dynamic priority just an extension of static priority? Why do
you modify only the ordering while leaving the timeslice alone?


So, tell me if I infer this correctly: If you have a nice 5 and a nice
7, but the nice 5 is a cpu hog, while the nice 7 is interactive, then
the interactivity scheduler can modify their dynamic priorities so that
the nice 7 is being run before the nice 5. However, despite that, the
nice 7 still gets a shorter timeslice than tha nice 5.

Have you tried altering this?


-
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:0.071 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site