Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O1int 0307021808 for interactivity | Date | Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:34:49 +1000 |
| |
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:27, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Thursday 03 July 2003 14:21, Con Kolivas wrote: > > Theory? uh erm it's rather involved but basically instead > > of working off the accumulated sleeping ticks gathered in ten seconds it > > works on the accumulated sleeping ticks gathered till it wakes up. It has > > non linear semantics to cope with the fact that you cant accumulate 10 > > seconds worth of ticks (for example) if only 10 seconds has passed > > (likewise for less time). Also idle tasks are no longer considered fully > > interactive but idle and receive no boost or penalty. Finally they all > > start with some sleep ticks inherited by their parent as though they have > > been running for 1 second at least. > > I'm still pretty much in the dark after that. It says something about your > patch, but it doesn't say much about the problem you're solving, i.e., > what's the Context? (pun intended)
Basically? Who gets to preempt who and for how long. The interactivity estimator should decide that the correct task is interactive and get a dynamically higher priority and larger timeslice. Is this what you're asking?
Con
- 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/
| |