Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 19:10:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 19:10:47 -0400 Received: from [208.129.208.52] ([208.129.208.52]:7684 "EHLO xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 19:10:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Alan Cox cc: Davide Libenzi , george anzinger , Benjamin LaHaise , Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: Context switch times In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > This damps down task thrashing a bit, and for the cpu hogs it gets the > > > desired behaviour - which is that the all run their full quantum in the > > > background one after another instead of thrashing back and forth > > > > What if we give to prev a priority boost P=F(T) where T is the time > > prev is ran before the current schedule ? > > That would be the wrong key. You can argue certainly that it is maybe > appropriate to use some function based on remaining scheduler ticks, but > that already occurs as the scheduler ticks is the upper bound for priority > band No, i mean T = (Tstart - Tend) where : Tstart = time the current ( prev ) task has been scheduled Tend = current time ( in schedule() ) Basically it's the total time the current ( prev ) task has had the CPU - Davide - 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/