Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller

[Hirokazu Takahashi]

Hi,

> On Friday 28 April 2006 22:07, MAEDA Naoaki wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > I agree with Mike here. It's either global resource management or it
> > > isn't. If one user is using all interactive tasks and the other user none
> > > it's unfair resource management.
> >
> > My intention was not to hurt interactive task's response, but it seems
> > that just ignoring interactive tasks is not good. I'll consider
> > regulating interactive tasks also.
> 
> I appreciate the gesture of concern over interactive tasks :-) Unfortunately 
> it doesn't change the fact that interactive tasks can also consume large 
> proportions of the resources, and that any interactivity estimator will get 
> it wrong on occasion and flag a non interactive task as interactive.

I think you can introduce some threshold to estimate whether
a process should be treated as an interactive process or not
while vanilla kernel defines it statically.
It will make processes in a resource group consuming large cpu-time
hard to be treated as interactive processes.


Thanks,
Hirokazu Takahashi.

-
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/