Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:25 -0500 Received: from services.cam.org ([198.73.180.252]:1212 "EHLO mail.cam.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:55:24 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ed Tomlinson Organization: me To: David Schwartz , Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] fix o(1) handling of threads Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 23:03:50 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <20021230230030.AAA103@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> In-Reply-To: <20021230230030.AAA103@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200212302303.50119.tomlins@cam.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1112 Lines: 23 On December 30, 2002 06:00 pm, David Schwartz wrote: > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:45:50 -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > >What this patches does is recognise threads as process that clone both > >mm and files. For these 'threads' it tracks how many are active in a > >given group. When many are active it reduces their timeslices as below > > In general, changes that cause the system to become less efficient as load > increases are not such a good idea. By reducing timeslices, you increase > context-switching overhead. So the busier you are, the less efficient you > get. I think it would be wiser to keep the timeslice the same but assign > fewer timeslices. That would be better - I cannot see a way to do it using O(1). What might be possible (not sure how) is only to decrease the timeslices IF there are other tasks being slowed down by the thread group... Ed - 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/