Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC 2/5] sched: Add CPU rate soft caps | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 26 May 2006 13:15:54 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 20:48 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Friday 26 May 2006 14:20, Peter Williams wrote: > > 3. Enforcement of caps is not as strict as it could be in order to > > reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while holding > > an important system resource with resultant overall performance > > degradation. In effect, all runnable capped tasks will get some amount > > of CPU access every active/expired swap cycle. This will be most > > apparent for small or zero soft caps. > > The array swap happens very frequently if there are nothing but heavily cpu > bound tasks, which is not an infrequent workload. I doubt the zero caps are > very effective in that environment.
Hmm. I think that came out kinda back-assward. You meant "the array swap happens very frequently _unless_..." No?
But anyway, I can't think of any reason to hold back an uncontested resource.
-Mike
- 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/
| |