Re: [SHED] Questions.

[Ian Kumlien <pomac@vapor.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1255 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 06:03, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 20:00, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> 
> > Then i'm beginning to agree with the time unit... Large timeslice but in
> > units for high pri tasks... So that high pri can run (if needed) 2 or 3
> > times / timeslice.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > > This implies that a high priority, which has exhausted its timeslice,
> > > will not be allowed to run again until _all_ other runnable tasks
> > > exhaust their timeslice (this ignores the reinsertion into the active
> > > array of interactive tasks, but that is an optimization that just
> > > complicates this discussion).
> > 
> > So it's penalised by being in the corner for one go? or just pri
> > penalised (sounds like it could get a corner from what you wrote... Or
> > is it time for bed).
> 
> Not penalized... all tasks go through the same thing.

Yeah, that part was unclear though. =)

[Snip: Thanks for the explanation i'll reply in Con's mail if needed ]

> But Unix is designed for timesharing among many interactive tasks.  It
> works.  The problem faced today in 2.6 is juggling throughput versus
> latency in the scheduler, with the interactivity estimator.

Yeah...

-- 
Ian Kumlien <pomac@vapor.com>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]