Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

[Timothy Miller]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:09, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> > > "scale" on which scheduling events should happen, and as tasks become
> > > more cpu-bound, they have longer timeslices, so that two cpu-bound
> > > tasks of identical priority will RR very slowly and have reduced
> > > context switch overhead, but are near infinitely preemptible by more
> > > interactive or short-running tasks.
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:59:33PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> > Actually the timeslice handed out is purely dependent on the static priority, 
> > not the priority it is elevated or demoted to by the interactivity estimator. 
> > However lower priority tasks (cpu bound ones if the estimator has worked 
> > correctly) will always be preempted by higher priority tasks (interactive 
> > ones) whenever they wake up.
>
>
> So it is; the above commentary was rather meant to suggest that the
> lengthening of timeslices in conventional arrangements did not penalize
> interactive tasks, not to imply that priority preemption was not done
> at all in the current scheduler.


If my guess from my previous email was correct (that is pri 5 gets 
shorter timeslide than pri 6), then that means that tasks of higher 
static priority have are penalized more than lower pri tasks for expiring.

Say a task has to run for 15ms.  If it's at a priority that gives it a 
10ms timeslice, then it'll expire and get demoted.  If it's at a 
priority that gives it a 20ms timeslice, then it'll not expire and 
therefore get promoted.

Is that fair?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/