Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:19:01 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.0-test2-mm1 results |
| |
>> Does this help interactivity a lot, or was it just an experiment? >> Perhaps it could be less agressive or something? > > Well basically this is a side effect of selecting out the correct cpu hogs in > the interactivity estimator. It seems to be working ;-) The more cpu hogs > they are the lower dynamic priority (higher number) they get, and the more > likely they are to be removed from the active array if they use up their full > timeslice. The scheduler in it's current form costs more to resurrect things > from the expired array and restart them, and the cpu hogs will have to wait > till other less cpu hogging tasks run. > > How do we get around this? I'll be brave here and say I'm not sure we need to, > as cpu hogs have a knack of slowing things down for everyone, and it is best > not just for interactivity for this to happen, but for fairness. > > I suspect a lot of people will have something to say on this one...
Well, what you want to do is prioritise interactive tasks over cpu hogs. What *seems* to be happening is you're just switching between cpu hogs more ... that doesn't help anyone really. I don't have an easy answer for how to fix that, but it doesn't seem desireable to me - we need some better way of working out what's interactive, and what's not.
M.
- 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/
| |