Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- From: "David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Oct 2006 17:16:53 -0700
xu_feng_xu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
i see your point but the average response time is also a factor that
needs to be considered. at the end a compromise should be taken. i
think you are missing my main point. my point was that Windows XP and
Solaris, Unlike Linux allocate shorter quantums to the highest queues.
That translates into *punishing* processes for voluntarily
relinquishing the CPU and *rewarding* processes for using up their full
timeslice. Processes receive higher priorities in exchange for
voluntarily relinquishing the CPU and they are rewarded for doing so
(and presumably for being interactive) by getting more CPU time when
they actually need it.
DS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- From: joseph2k
- Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- References:
- Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- From: xu_feng_xu
- Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- From: xu_feng_xu
- Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- From: xu_feng_xu
- Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- Prev by Date: Re: Nobody should ever need to patch the kernel!!
- Next by Date: Upgrading Glibc Issues?
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- Next by thread: Re: Linux Scheduler Time Quantum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|