Messages in this thread | | | Subject | interactive task starvation | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:46:15 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 10:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yep, i think that's a good idea. In the worst case the starvation > timeout should kick in.
(I didn't want to hijack that thread ergo name change)
Speaking of the starvation timeout...
I'm beginning to wonder if it might not be a good idea to always have an expired_timestamp to ensure that there is a limit to how long interactive tasks can starve _each other_. Yesterday, I ran some tests with apache, and ended up waiting for over 3 minutes for a netstat| grep :81|wc -l to finish when competing with 10 copies of httpd. The problem with the expired_timestamp is that if there is nobody already expired, and if no non-interactive task exists, there's certainly no expired_timestamp, there's no starvation limit.
There are other ways to cure 'interactive starvation', but forcing an array switch if a non-interactive task hasn't run for pick-a-number time is the easiest.
-Mike
(yup, folks would certainly feel it, and would _very_ likely gripe, so it would probably have to be configurable)
- 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/
| |