Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3 | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 06 Mar 2003 18:05:23 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:31, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> Right, being able to control this interactivity knob programmatically > seems like a useful thing. That way, the window manager can boost the > interactivity of the foreground window for example. It does seem that > figuring out that something is interactive in the scheduler is tough, > there is just not enough information, whereas a higher layer may know > this for a fact. I guess this reduces my argument to just keeping the > interactivity setting separate from priority.
No no no. Martin's point shows exactly that nothing but the kernel can ever know whether a task is I/O or CPU bound. What is bash? Is it interactive (when you are typing into it) or CPU bound (when its running a script or doing other junk)?
Only the kernel knows exactly the sleep patterns of tasks, which is essentially whether or not a task is interactive.
Finally, the windows manager idea is bad. The foreground window may have dependencies elsewhere, and giving it a boost only partially solves the problem.
I think with Linus's patch, the problem is solved, because we boost both I/O-bound tasks and tasks that help I/O bound tasks.
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/
| |