Quoting Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:40, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > - further increase timeslice granularity
> >
> > For a while now I've been running a 1000Hz 2.4 O(1) kernel tree that
> > uses timeslice granularity set to MIN_TIMESLICE which has stark
> > smoothness improvements in X. I've avoided promoting this idea because
> > of the theoretical drop in throughput this might cause. I've not been
> > able to see any detriment in my basic testing of this small granularity,
> > so I was curious to see what you throught was a reasonable lower limit?
>
> it's a hard question. The 25 msecs in -G6 is probably too low.
Just another thought on that is to make sure they don't get requeued to start
with just 2 ticks left - which would happen to all nice 0 tasks running their
full timeslice. Here is what I'm doing in O10:
+ } else if (!((task_timeslice(p) - p->time_slice) %
+ TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY) && (p->time_slice > MIN_TIMESLICE) &&
+ (p->array == rq->active)) {
Con
-
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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:35 EST