From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
gaxt <gaxt@rogers.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] O16int for interactivity
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:31:50 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200308161231.50661.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F3D25D0.7010701@techsource.com>
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:26, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Preemption of tasks at the same level with twice as much timeslice has
> > been dropped as this is not necessary with timeslice granularity (may
> > improve performance of cpu intensive tasks).
>
> Does this situation happen where two tasks at different nice levels have
> dynamic priority adjustments which make them effectively have the same
> priority?
Yes it does. Preemption and order of scheduling is determined entirely by the
dynamic priority.
> > Preemption of user tasks is limited to those in the interactive range;
> > cpu intensive non interactive tasks can run out their full timeslice (may
> > also improve cpu intensive performance)
>
> What can cause preemption of a task that has not used up its timeslice?
Any task of better (dynamic) priority will preempt it.
> I assume a device interrupt could do this, but... there's a question I
> asked earlier which I haven't read the answer to yet, so I'm going to
> guess:
>
> A hardware timer interrupt happens at timeslice granularity. If the
> interrupt occurs, but the timeslice is not expired, then NORMALLY, the
> ISR would just return right back to the running task, but sometimes, it
> might decided to end the timeslice early and run some other task.
>
> Right?
No, the timeslice granularity is a hard cut off where a task gets rescheduled
and put at the back of the queue again. If there is no other task of equal or
better priority it will just start again.
> So, what might cause the scheduler to decide to preempt a task which has
> not used up its timeslice?
Better dynamic priority.
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-16 2:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-15 15:49 [PATCH] O16int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-15 18:26 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-15 18:45 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-08-16 2:31 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-08-18 15:46 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-18 15:43 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-18 19:48 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-18 22:46 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-15 19:00 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-16 2:14 ` [PATCH]O16.1int was " Con Kolivas
2003-08-15 21:01 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-15 23:03 ` Scheduler activations (IIRC) question Jamie Lokier
2003-08-15 23:54 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-16 0:54 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16 6:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-16 14:18 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 5:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 6:55 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 7:05 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-17 8:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 17:12 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 17:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-08-17 18:26 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 18:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 18:29 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 18:46 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16 20:54 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-08-16 21:39 ` Jamie Lokier
[not found] ` <20030817144203.J670@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de>
2003-08-17 20:02 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-18 0:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-18 10:38 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-08-18 13:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16 7:01 ` [PATCH] O16int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 10:08 ` Apurva Mehta
2003-08-18 10:30 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 12:13 ` Apurva Mehta
2003-08-15 20:50 Voluspa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200308161231.50661.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=gaxt@rogers.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miller@techsource.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).