Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 08 Jan 2006 06:51:24 +0100 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response |
| |
At 10:40 AM 1/8/2006 +1100, Peter Williams wrote: >Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> One slight variation of your scheme would be to measure the average >>> length of the CPU runs that the task does (i.e. how long it runs >>> without voluntarily relinquishing the CPU) and not allowing them to >>> defer the shift to the expired array if this average run length is >>> greater than some specified value. The length of this average for each >>> task shouldn't change with system load. (This is more or less saying >>> that it's ok for a task to stay on the active array provided it's >>> unlikely to delay the switch between the active and expired arrays for >>> very long.) >> >>Average burn time would indeed probably be a better metric, but that >>would require doing bookkeeping is the fast path. > >Most of the infrastructure is already there and the cost of doing the >extra bits required to get this metric would be extremely small. The >hardest bit would be deciding on the "limit" to be applied when deciding >whether to let a supposed interactive task stay on the active array.
Yeah, I noticed run_time when I started implementing my first cut. (which is of course buggy)
>By the way, it seems you have your own scheduler versions? If so are you >interested in adding them to the collection in PlugSched?
No, I used to do a bunch of experimentation in fairness vs interactivity, but they all ended up just trading one weakness for an other.
-Mike
- 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/
| |