lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler
Date
On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 15:42, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > And thank you! I think I know what's going on now. I think each
> > > > > rotation is followed by another rotation before the higher priority
> > > > > task is getting a look in in schedule() to even get quota and add
> > > > > it to the runqueue quota. I'll try a simple change to see if that
> > > > > helps. Patch coming up shortly.
> > > >
> > > > Can you try the following patch and see if it helps. There's also one
> > > > minor preemption logic fix in there that I'm planning on including.
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Applied on top of v0.28 mainline, and there is no difference.
> > >
> > > What's it look like on your machine?
> >
> > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority one
> > runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amount.
> > Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets precisely
> > RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority task gets
> > RR_INTERVAL min and full expiration (according to the virtual deadline)
> > as a maximum. That's exactly how I intend it to work. Yes I realise that
> > the max latency ends up being longer intermittently on the niced task but
> > that's -in my opinion- perfectly fine as a compromise to ensure the nice
> > 0 one always gets low latency.
>
> I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency across
> the rotation, should it not?

There is a way that I toyed with of creating maps of slots to use for each
different priority, but it broke the O(1) nature of the virtual deadline
management. Minimising algorithmic complexity seemed more important to
maintain than getting slightly better latency spreads for niced tasks. It
also appeared to be less cache friendly in design. I could certainly try and
implement it but how much importance are we to place on latency of niced
tasks? Are you aware of any usage scenario where latency sensitive tasks are
ever significantly niced in the real world?
--
-ck
-
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: 2007-03-12 13:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans