Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

[Con Kolivas]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:17, Timothy Miller wrote:
> >All "nice" 0 tasks get the same size timeslice. If their dynamic priority
> > is different (the PRI column in top) they still get the same timeslice.
>
> Why isn't dynamic priority just an extension of static priority?  Why do
> you modify only the ordering while leaving the timeslice alone?

Because master engineer Molnar has determined that's the correct way.

> So, tell me if I infer this correctly:  If you have a nice 5 and a nice
> 7, but the nice 5 is a cpu hog, while the nice 7 is interactive, then
> the interactivity scheduler can modify their dynamic priorities so that
> the nice 7 is being run before the nice 5.  However, despite that, the
> nice 7 still gets a shorter timeslice than tha nice 5.
>
> Have you tried altering this?

Yes, not good with fluctuating timeslices all over the place makes for more 
bounce in the algorithm, and the big problem - the cpu intensive applications 
get demoted to smaller timeslices and they are the tasks that benefit the 
most from larger timeslices (for effective cpu cache usage).

Con

-
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/