lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Maximum frequency of re-scheduling (minimum time quantum ) que stio n
    Peter Williams wrote:
    > Povolotsky, Alexander wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Peter,
    >>
    >>
    >>> By freeing "time slice"s from their involvement in active/expired
    >>> priority array switching etc., the various single priority array
    >>> schedulers (e.g. Con Kolivas's staircase scheduler and my SPA "pb"
    >>> and "eb" schedulers) that are under development raise the possibility
    >>> of allowing the time slice for SCHED_RR tasks to be different to that
    >>> of ordinary tasks or even for it to be set separately for each
    >>> SCHED_RR task. Whether this is desirable or not is another question.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> IMHO (I am new in Linux),- if this functionality could be either
    >> optionally
    >> configured at compile time or be optionally invokable at run time (or
    >> combination of both) - why not to have it ? - this addition enhances
    >> choices
    >> of scheduling,
    >> which is good.
    >>
    >> Is there a chance such functionality will make into Linux 2.6 as a
    >> patch (at
    >> some later time) ?
    >
    >
    > Not until the current scheduler is replaced with a single priority array
    > scheduler. However, if there's enough interest, I could add this
    > functionality to the CPU scheduler evaluation patch so that people could
    > experiment with it (BUT it would be at the bottom of my to do list).

    You are mistaken. The current scheduler only uses a single array
    for realtime tasks. Functionality would be trivial to implement
    now.

    >
    >>
    >> By the way - what is the "mechanism" of decision making process (among
    >> Linux
    >> kernel developers) on such things ?
    >
    >
    > I'll leave this question to someone more knowledgeable.
    >

    I'd defer a final decision to others more knowlegeable of course
    (Ingo, Andrew, Linus?), however it would be almost out of the
    question to do a wholesale replacement in 2.6.

    However well tested your scheduler might be, it needs several
    orders of magnitude more testing ;) Maybe the best we can hope
    for is compile time selectable alternatives.
    -
    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 14:04    [W:0.024 / U:2.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site