Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271719AbTHHRnv (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:43:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271737AbTHHRnv (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:43:51 -0400 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:35601 "HELO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S271719AbTHHRnu (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:43:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3F33E46D.9040508@techsource.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:57:01 -0400 From: Timothy Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: linux kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton , Felipe Alfaro Solana , Cliff White Subject: Re: [PATCH]O14int References: <200308090149.25688.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 833 Lines: 25 Con Kolivas wrote: > Made highly interactive tasks earn all their waiting time on the runqueue > during requeuing as sleep_avg. There are some mechanics of this that I am not familiar with, so please excuse the naive question. Someone had suggested that a task's sleep time should be determine exclusively from the time it spends blocked by what it's waiting on, and not based on any OTHER time it sleeps. That is, the time between the I/O request being satisfied and the task actually getting the CPU doesn't count. Is your statement above a reflection of that suggestion? - 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/