[SHED] Questions.

From: Ian Kumlien (pomac_at_vapor.com)
Date: 08/31/03

  • Next message: Toon van der Pas: "Re: bandwidth for bkbits.net (good news)" 
    To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:	Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:07:15 +0200

    Hi,

    I'll risk sounding like a moron again =)

    I still wonder about the counter intuitive quantum value for
    processes... (or timeslice if you will)

    Why not use small quantum values for high pri processes and long for low
    pri since the high pri processes will preempt the low pri processes
    anyways. And for a server working under load with only a few processes
    (assuming they are all low pri) would lessen the context switches.

    And a system with "interactive load" as well would, as i said, preempt
    the lower pris. But this could also cause a problem... Imho there should
    be a "min quantum value" so that processes can't preempt a process that
    was just scheduled (i dunno if this is implemented already though).

    Imho this would also make it easy to get the right pri for highpri
    processes since the quantum value is smaller and if you use it all up
    you get demoted.

    Anyways, I've been wondering about the inverted values in the scheduler
    and for a mixed load/server load i don't see the benefit... =P

    PS. Do not forget to CC me since i'm not on this list...
    DS. 

    -- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac@vapor.com>

    -
    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/

  • Next message: Toon van der Pas: "Re: bandwidth for bkbits.net (good news)"