On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:03, Martin Waitz wrote:
> RE: the patch, i think using sleep_avg is a wrong metric from the
> beginning.
Eh? It is as close to a heuristic of interactivity as I can think of.
> in addition, timeslices should be shortest for high priority processes
> (depending on dynamic prio, not static)
No, they should be longer. In some cases they should be nearly
infinitely long (which is sort of what we do with the reinsertion into
the active array for highly interactive tasks). We want interactive
tasks to always be able to run.
You may think they need shorter timeslice because they are I/O-bound.
Keep in mind they need not _use_ all their timeslice in one go, and
having a large timeslice ensures they have timeslice available when they
wake up and need to run.
Robert Love
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:34 EST