From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263335AbTIAWZ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:25:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263336AbTIAWZ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:25:56 -0400 Received: from c-780372d5.012-136-6c756e2.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se ([213.114.3.120]:5588 "EHLO pomac.netswarm.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263335AbTIAWZy (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:25:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [SHED] Questions. From: Ian Kumlien To: Robert Love Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1062389038.1313.39.camel@boobies.awol.org> References: <1062324435.9959.56.camel@big.pomac.com> <1062355996.1313.4.camel@boobies.awol.org> <1062358285.5171.101.camel@big.pomac.com> <1062359478.1313.9.camel@boobies.awol.org> <1062369684.9959.166.camel@big.pomac.com> <1062373274.1313.28.camel@boobies.awol.org> <1062374409.5171.194.camel@big.pomac.com> <1062389038.1313.39.camel@boobies.awol.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-GNsjaSK8J+u+uskxVovI" Message-Id: <1062455078.9959.207.camel@big.pomac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:24:38 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-GNsjaSK8J+u+uskxVovI Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 06:03, Robert Love wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 20:00, Ian Kumlien wrote: >=20 > > Then i'm beginning to agree with the time unit... Large timeslice but i= n > > units for high pri tasks... So that high pri can run (if needed) 2 or 3 > > times / timeslice. >=20 > Exactly. >=20 > > > 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). > >=20 > > 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). >=20 > Not penalized... all tasks go through the same thing. Yeah, that part was unclear though. =3D) [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... --=20 Ian Kumlien --=-GNsjaSK8J+u+uskxVovI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/U8cm7F3Euyc51N8RAndfAJwOIS4XgvWMv6TjFJjdvq9W3wDQ5wCfcyZx zJvg6Wycmjfv5Iq+7LpQi8Q= =aq4g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-GNsjaSK8J+u+uskxVovI--