Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:17:33 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:57, Timothy Miller wrote: > > >>>Actually the timeslice handed out is purely dependent on the static >>>priority, not the priority it is elevated or demoted to by the >>>interactivity estimator. However lower priority tasks (cpu bound ones if >>>the estimator has worked correctly) will always be preempted by higher >>>priority tasks (interactive ones) whenever they wake up. >>> >>> >>Ok, so tasks at priority, say, 5 are all run before any tasks at >>priority 6, but when a priority 6 task runs, it gets a longer timeslice? >> >> > >All "nice" 0 tasks get the same size timeslice. If their dynamic priority is >different (the PRI column in top) they still get the same timeslice. > >
Why isn't dynamic priority just an extension of static priority? Why do you modify only the ordering while leaving the timeslice alone?
So, tell me if I infer this correctly: If you have a nice 5 and a nice 7, but the nice 5 is a cpu hog, while the nice 7 is interactive, then the interactivity scheduler can modify their dynamic priorities so that the nice 7 is being run before the nice 5. However, despite that, the nice 7 still gets a shorter timeslice than tha nice 5.
Have you tried altering this?
- 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/
| |