[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity
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).


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