Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:03:32 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.0-test2-mm1 results |
| |
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > 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.
If that's what it really does, fine. I'm not sure it really finds hogs, though, or rather "finds only true hogs."
> > 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.
While this does a good job I'm still worried that we don't have a good handle on which processes are realy interactive in term of interfacing with a human. I don't think we can make the scheduler do the right thing in every case unless it has better information.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- 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/
| |