Re: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler

[Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 15:42, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > And thank you! I think I know what's going on now. I think each
> > > > rotation is followed by another rotation before the higher priority
> > > > task is getting a look in in schedule() to even get quota and add it
> > > > to the runqueue quota. I'll try a simple change to see if that
> > > > helps. Patch coming up shortly.
> > >
> > > Can you try the following patch and see if it helps. There's also one
> > > minor preemption logic fix in there that I'm planning on including.
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Applied on top of v0.28 mainline, and there is no difference.
> >
> > What's it look like on your machine?
>
> 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?


Thanks!

--
Al