Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272234AbTHNHAS (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:00:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272235AbTHNHAR (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:00:17 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:51384 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272234AbTHNHAM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:00:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:01:19 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Con Kolivas Cc: Timothy Miller , rob@landley.net, Charlie Baylis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity Message-ID: <20030814070119.GN32488@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Con Kolivas , Timothy Miller , rob@landley.net, Charlie Baylis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030804195058.GA8267@cray.fish.zetnet.co.uk> <3F3A5D61.7080207@techsource.com> <20030814060959.GK32488@holomorphy.com> <200308141659.33447.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200308141659.33447.kernel@kolivas.org> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1283 Lines: 26 On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:09, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> "scale" on which scheduling events should happen, and as tasks become >> more cpu-bound, they have longer timeslices, so that two cpu-bound >> tasks of identical priority will RR very slowly and have reduced >> context switch overhead, but are near infinitely preemptible by more >> interactive or short-running tasks. On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:59:33PM +1000, Con Kolivas 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. So it is; the above commentary was rather meant to suggest that the lengthening of timeslices in conventional arrangements did not penalize interactive tasks, not to imply that priority preemption was not done at all in the current scheduler. -- wli - 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/