[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.109 / U:22.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site