Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:41:01 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [SHED] Questions. |
| |
Ian Kumlien wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 12:17, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Search for "Nick's scheduler policy" ;) >> > >Heh, yeah, i have been following your and con's work via >marc.theaimsgroup.com. =) >
Well, my patch does almost exactly what you describe.
> >But wouldn't ingos off the shelf stuff work better with the quantum >values like that? >
That means more complexity and behaviour that is more difficult to trace. The interactivity stuff is already a monster to tune.
> >And is the preempt min quantum in there? >
No. If you do that, you'll either break the priority concept very badly, or you'll break it a little bit and turn the scheduler into an O(n) one.
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |