lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler
    Date
    On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:14, Al Boldi wrote:
    > Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority
    > > > > one runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amount.
    > > > > Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets
    > > > > precisely RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority task
    > > > > gets RR_INTERVAL min and full expiration (according to the virtual
    > > > > deadline) as a maximum. That's exactly how I intend it to work. Yes I
    > > > > realise that the max latency ends up being longer intermittently on
    > > > > the niced task but that's -in my opinion- perfectly fine as a
    > > > > compromise to ensure the nice 0 one always gets low latency.
    > > >
    > > > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency
    > > > across the rotation, should it not?
    > >
    > > There is a way that I toyed with of creating maps of slots to use for
    > > each different priority, but it broke the O(1) nature of the virtual
    > > deadline management. Minimising algorithmic complexity seemed more
    > > important to maintain than getting slightly better latency spreads for
    > > niced tasks. It also appeared to be less cache friendly in design. I
    > > could certainly try and implement it but how much importance are we to
    > > place on latency of niced tasks? Are you aware of any usage scenario
    > > where latency sensitive tasks are ever significantly niced in the real
    > > world?
    >
    > It only takes one negatively nice'd proc to affect X adversely.

    I have an idea. Give me some time to code up my idea. Lack of sleep is making
    me very unpleasant.

    --
    -ck
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-12 19:09    [W:4.436 / U:0.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site