Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:29:16 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [uPATCH] SMP scheduling fix (?) |
| |
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Neil Conway wrote:
> > This patch may fix the problem by giving a large bonus > > to 'normal' processes and a smaller one to niced tasks. > > It also removes the standard 'weight += p->priority' > > because that one was a workaround for the bug in tty_ioctl.c > > and we shouldn't need it any more now that that's fixed. > > Hi... This patch is flawed. If we use it, it'll reintroduce the > crappy interactive response when interactive jobs compete with > non-niced CPU-hogs.
I thought about that one the moment I had sent it :(
> If you want to use this type of approach (and it does seem sensible, > though I haven't given it a huge amount of thought), try something like: > > weight += MIN(PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY,p->priority);
Or (p->priority >> 1), which will never get above PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY except for negatively niced processes which we want to have precedence anyway.
Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue? +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. riel@nl.linux.org | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.nl.linux.org/~riel | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |