[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Minor scheduler fix to get rid of skipping in xmms

    John Yau wrote:

    >>Its actually more important when you have smaller timeslices, because
    >>the interactive task is more likely to use all of its timeslice in a
    >>burst of activity, then getting stuck behind all the cpu hogs.
    >Well, I didn't claim it'd be optimal, I just said that it's not worth the
    >extra effort. The interactive task will still finish in O((interactive_time
    >/ timeslice) * #hogs + interative_time) ms. As long as the cpu time
    >interactive tasks require are very short, they still should finish within a
    >reasonable amount of time.

    I have found it to be worth the extra effort in my patches, but maybe
    you have something different in mind.

    >>Yes. Also, say 5 hogs running, an interactive task needs to do something
    >>taking 2ms. At a 2ms timeslice, it will take 2ms. At a 1ms timeslice it
    >>will take 6ms.
    >That's assuming that the interactive task gets scheduled first. In the
    >worst case scenario where it gets scheduled last, at 2 ms, it takes 12 ms
    >and at 1 ms it also takes 12 ms. Not much difference there.

    No, not much difference. If the worst case scenario happens, it
    indicates you have quite a big problem (ie. an interactive task not
    allowed to preempt cpu hogs).

    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 13:48    [W:0.026 / U:3.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site