From: "John Yau" <jyau_kernel_dev@hotmail.com>
To: "Nick Piggin" <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <000201c374c8$1124ee20$f40a0a0a@Aria> <3F5ABE90.2040003@cyberone.com.au> <Law10-OE296cRyiOYbp00008b23@hotmail.com> <3F5AE7ED.7010501@cyberone.com.au> <LAW10-OE38NfztQ7LS000009f64@hotmail.com> <3F5AF9D9.3070206@cyberone.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Minor scheduler fix to get rid of skipping in xmms
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:30:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Law10-OE54gbLYluLCT0003a61e@hotmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1164
Lines: 28

>
> Its actually more important when you have smaller timeslices, because
> the interactive task is more likely to use all of its timeslice in a
> burst of activity, then getting stuck behind all the cpu hogs.
>

Well, I didn't claim it'd be optimal, I just said that it's not worth the
extra effort.  The interactive task will still finish in O((interactive_time
/ timeslice) * #hogs + interative_time) ms.  As long as the cpu time
interactive tasks require are very short, they still should finish within a
reasonable amount of time.

> >
>
> Yes. Also, say 5 hogs running, an interactive task needs to do something
> taking 2ms. At a 2ms timeslice, it will take 2ms. At a 1ms timeslice it
> will take 6ms.
>

That's assuming that the interactive task gets scheduled first.  In the
worst case scenario where it gets scheduled last, at 2 ms, it takes 12 ms
and at 1 ms it also takes 12 ms.  Not much difference there.

-
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/