Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271200AbTG1XU5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:20:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271201AbTG1XU5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:20:57 -0400 Received: from c210-49-248-224.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:45479 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271200AbTG1XUz (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:20:55 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: as / scheduler question Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:25:10 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: piggin@cyberone.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200307290908.09065.kernel@kolivas.org> <20030728160117.3f679f01.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20030728160117.3f679f01.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307290925.10876.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1831 Lines: 36 On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:01, Andrew Morton wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > Nick > > > > With the sheduler work Ingo and I have been doing I was wondering if > > there was possibly a problem with requeuing kernel threads at certain > > intervals? Ingo's current version requeues all threads at 25ms and I just > > wondered if this number might be a multiple or factor of a magic number > > in the AS workings, as we're seeing a few changes in behaviour with AS > > only. I'm planning on leaving kernel threads out of this requeuing, but I > > thought I could also pick your brain. > > What does "requeues all threads at 25ms" mean? > > The only dependency we should have there is that kblockd should be > scheduled promptly after it is woken. It is reniced by -10 so it should be > OK. Renicing it further or making it SCHED_RR/FIFO would be interesting. Ingo introduced the concept of TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY a while ago. All processes currently running on the active queue get interrupted in their timeslice after TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY (currently set at 25ms and the subject of another thread), and put on the tail of the active array to continue their timeslice after other processes at the same priority on the active queue get to run, also for at most TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY. If kblockd is reniced to -10 it wont have a problem unless something else ends up with the same dynamic priority which would only happen if there are interactive tasks reniced to -10. If it's the only process on the active array at that priority it _should_ run unaffected. 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/