[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:0.161 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site