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