Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:54:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:54:14 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:29446 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:54:05 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:00:12 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Alexei Podtelezhnikov cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [o(1) sched J0] higher priority smaller timeslices, in fact 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 Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote: > > The comment and the actual macros are inconsistent. > positive number * (19-n) is a decreasing function of n! # man nice > + * The higher a process's priority, the bigger timeslices > + * it gets during one round of execution. But even the lowest > + * priority process gets MIN_TIMESLICE worth of execution time. > + */ > > -#define NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(n) (MIN_TIMESLICE + \ > - ((MAX_TIMESLICE - MIN_TIMESLICE) * (19 - (n))) / 39) > +#define NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(n) (MIN_TIMESLICE + \ > + ((MAX_TIMESLICE - MIN_TIMESLICE) * (19-(n))) / 39) > > I still suggest a different set as faster and more readable at least to > me. Just two operations instead of 4! this seems quite readable to me, it's the equation at page 1 of any know linear geometry book. - 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/