lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [SHED] Questions.


    Ian Kumlien wrote:

    >On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 13:08, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >
    >>Ian Kumlien wrote:
    >>
    >>>You could say that the problem the current scheduler has is that it's
    >>>not allowed to starve anything, thats why we add stuff to give
    >>>interactive bonus. But if it *was* allowed to starve but gave bonus to
    >>>the starved processes that would make most of the interactive detection
    >>>useless (yes, we still need the "didn't use their timeslice" bit and
    >>>with a timeslice that gets smaller the higher the pri we'd automagically
    >>>balance most processes).
    >>>
    >>>(As usual my assumptions might be really wrong...)
    >>>
    >>First off, no general purpose scheduler should allow starvation depending
    >>on your definition. The interactivity stuff, and even dynamic priorities
    >>allow short term unfairness.
    >>
    >
    >When you reach a certain load you *have to* allow starvation. Ie, you
    >can't work around it... All i say is that if we have a more relaxed
    >method we might benefit from it.
    >

    Depending on your definition. If 1000 processes get 10ms CPU every
    10000ms I would not call that being starved. Maybe thats misleading.

    >
    >>Hmm... what else? The "didn't use their timeslice" thing is not
    >>applicable: a new timeslice doesn't get handed out until the previous one
    >>is used. The priorities thing is done based on how much sleeping the
    >>process does.
    >>
    >
    >And not the amount of cpu consumed by the app / go?
    >

    Well yeah in a way. Consuming CPU lowers priority, sleeping raises.

    >
    >>Its funny, everyone seems to have very similar ideas that they are
    >>expressing by describing different implementations they have in mind.
    >>
    >
    >Yes =), I'm mailing Con directly now as well, to save some unwanted
    >traffic here =). I just hope that we'll reach a agreement somewhere
    >about whats sane or not...
    >
    >Mail me if you're interested as well.
    >

    OK CC me

    -
    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 13:48    [W:3.844 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site