Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:02:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:02:04 -0500 Received: from mccammon.ucsd.edu ([132.239.16.211]:10404 "EHLO mccammon.ucsd.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:01:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:02:37 -0800 (PST) From: Alexei Podtelezhnikov X-X-Sender: apodtele@chemcca18.ucsd.edu To: Davide Libenzi 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 man nice helped. Thanks! On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote: > 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/