lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity
Date
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:17, Timothy Miller wrote:
> >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?

Because master engineer Molnar has determined that's the correct way.

> 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?

Yes, not good with fluctuating timeslices all over the place makes for more
bounce in the algorithm, and the big problem - the cpu intensive applications
get demoted to smaller timeslices and they are the tasks that benefit the
most from larger timeslices (for effective cpu cache usage).

Con

-
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:0.034 / U:5.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site