Re: [SHED] Questions.
From: Robert Love (rml_at_tech9.net)
Date: 08/31/03
- Previous message: Ian Kumlien: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- In reply to: Ian Kumlien: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Ian Kumlien <pomac@vapor.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:51:18 -0400
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 15:31, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> Since they would have a high pri still, and preempt is there... it
> should be back on the cpu pretty quick.
Ah, but no! You assume we do not have an expired list and round robin
scheduling.
Once a task exhausts its timeslice, it cannot run until all other tasks
exhaust their timeslice. If this were not the case, high priority tasks
could monopolize the system.
> But, it also creates problems for when a interactive process becomes a
> cpu hog. Like this the detection should be faster, but should be slowed
> down somewhat.
I agree, although I do think it responds fairly quick. But, regardless,
this is why I am interested in Nick's work. The interactivity estimator
can never be perfect.
> But, hogs would instead cause a context switch hell and lessen the
> throughput on server loads...
Hm, why?
> I don't see how priorities would be questioned... Since, all i say is
> that a task that gets preempted should have a guaranteed time on the cpu
> so that we don't waste cycles doing context switches all the time.
But latency is important.
Robert Love
-
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/
- Previous message: Ian Kumlien: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- In reply to: Ian Kumlien: "Re: [SHED] Questions."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
