From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030266AbXCLO4d (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:56:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030309AbXCLO4d (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:56:33 -0400 Received: from psmtp09.wxs.nl ([195.121.247.23]:53467 "EHLO psmtp09.wxs.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030266AbXCLO4b (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:56:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:58:44 +0100 From: jos poortvliet X-Face: $0>4o"Xx2u2q(Tx!D+6~yPc{ZhEfnQnu:/nthh%Kr%f$aiATk$xjx^X4admsd*)=?utf-8?q?IZz=3A=5FkT=0A=09=7CurITP!=2E?=)L`*)Vw@4\@6>#r;3xSPW`,~C9vb`W/s]}Gq]b!o_/+(lJ:b)=?utf-8?q?T0=26KCLMGvG=7CS=5E=0A=09z=7B=5C=2E7EtehxhFQE=27eYSsir/=7CtQ?= =?utf-8?q?j=23rWQe4o?=>WC>_R To: ck@vds.kolivas.org Cc: Al Boldi , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <200703121559.23157.jos@mijnkamer.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=nextPart2323006.tXNY7odxGV Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200703042335.26785.a1426z@gawab.com> <200703122352.51257.kernel@kolivas.org> <200703121714.25034.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart2323006.tXNY7odxGV Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Al Boldi: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority > > > > one runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amoun= t. > > > > Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets > > > > precisely RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority ta= sk > > > > 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? > > > > There is a way that I toyed with of creating maps of slots to use for > > each different priority, but it broke the O(1) nature of the virtual > > deadline management. Minimising algorithmic complexity seemed more > > important to maintain than getting slightly better latency spreads for > > niced tasks. It also appeared to be less cache friendly in design. I > > could certainly try and implement it but how much importance are we to > > place on latency of niced tasks? Are you aware of any usage scenario > > where latency sensitive tasks are ever significantly niced in the real > > world? > > It only takes one negatively nice'd proc to affect X adversely. Then, maybe, we should start nicing X again, like we did/had to do until a = few=20 years ago? Or should we just wait until X gets fixed (after all, developmen= t=20 goes faster than ever)? Or is this really the scheduler's fault? > Thanks! > > -- > Al > > _______________________________________________ > http://ck.kolivas.org/faqs/replying-to-mailing-list.txt > ck mailing list - mailto: ck@vds.kolivas.org > http://vds.kolivas.org/mailman/listinfo/ck =2D-=20 Disclaimer: Alles wat ik doe denk en zeg is gebaseerd op het wereldbeeld wat ik nu heb.= =20 Ik ben niet verantwoordelijk voor wijzigingen van de wereld, of het beeld w= at=20 ik daarvan heb, noch voor de daaruit voortvloeiende gedragingen van mezelf.= =20 Alles wat ik zeg is aardig bedoeld, tenzij expliciet vermeld. --nextPart2323006.tXNY7odxGV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBF9Wql+wgQ1AD35iwRAiv1AKC1Y8Hn9ABVNVY2u+fIYCVrtV8f8gCff0YI 5uX/vksJR6cAdFKRCJ9DH4U= =q1xN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2323006.tXNY7odxGV--