Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

[Timothy Miller]

Con Kolivas wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:57, Timothy Miller 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.
> > >      
> > Ok, so tasks at priority, say, 5 are all run before any tasks at
> > priority 6, but when a priority 6 task runs, it gets a longer timeslice?
> >    
>
> 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?


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?


-
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/