Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:49:04 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |