Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Sep 2003 03:36:57 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [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 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/
| |