Re: Feature proposal (scheduling related) -- conclusion

From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:58:04 EST


On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:28:50 +0300, jimis@gmx.net said:

> great, I had no idea of this potential. But what I propose is scheduling the
> network traffic (at least the outgoing traffic that we can influence directly)
> according to the process priority, not according to the traffic type (which is
> important but different).

So you want to use a number that controls the CPU scheduling to force the network
scheduling to go along? That's a bad idea waiting to happen.

(Hint - some program is getting CPU-starved for some reason, so you 'nice -2' it
to make it run tolerably. Suddenly your icecast gets stomped on. Whoops)

It's even worse if you're trying to use dynamic priorities - then your icecast
can get pushed to the bottom of the network pile because some other process
went super-interactive for a while...

Remember - you're trying to optimize the "network experience" for the
*connection*. Base it on the port numbers, or use the process's UID and run
your program under a seperate UID, or maybe a PID-based scheme, with an ioctl()
or /{proc,sys} based control....



-
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 - 22:00:42 EST