Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S275229AbTHSEXx (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:23:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S275304AbTHSEXx (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:23:53 -0400 Received: from tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.71]:16282 "EHLO tomts17-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S275229AbTHSEXw (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:23:52 -0400 Subject: Re: scheduler interactivity: timeslice calculation seem wrong From: Eric St-Laurent To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200308191413.00135.kernel@kolivas.org> References: <1061261666.2094.15.camel@orbiter> <200308191413.00135.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1061267029.2900.54.camel@orbiter> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:23:50 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 985 Lines: 23 > You mean this the other way round, no? +nice means more nice. sure you're right. and i know that timeslices get asssigned based on static priority (which is nice value rescaled). > For the most part, most tasks start at nice 0 so they pretty much all get the > same size timslices unless they get preempted. The rest of the discussion i've read that tasks should start at higher dynamic priority with a small timeslice (a priority boost for a starting task) then immediatly drop to a lower priority if it use all it's timeslice. > implemented theory. Changing it up and down by dynamic priority one way and > then the other wasn't helpful when I've tried it previously. maybe it's because the timeslice calculation is reversed? - 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/