From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933297AbXCMVEN (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:04:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933340AbXCMVEM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:04:12 -0400 Received: from mail31.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.102]:40110 "EHLO mail31.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933322AbXCMVEM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:04:12 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Al Boldi Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RSDL-0.30] sched: rsdl improve latencies with differential nice -1 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:58:29 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , ck list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200703042335.26785.a1426z@gawab.com> <200703140231.28314.kernel@kolivas.org> <200703140303.36456.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200703140303.36456.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703140758.30079.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:03, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:31, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote: > > > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency > > > across the rotation, should it not? > > > > Can you try the attached patch please Al and Mike? It "dithers" the > > priority bitmap which tends to fluctuate the latency a lot more but in a > > cyclical fashion. This tends to make the max latency bound to a smaller > > value and should make it possible to run -nice tasks without killing the > > latency of the non niced tasks. Eg you could possibly run X nice -10 at a > > guess like we used to in 2.4 days. It's not essential of course, but is a > > workaround for Mike's testcase. > > Oops, one tiny fix. This is a respin of the patch, sorry. > --- Bah with a bit more sleep under my belt it became clear that I forgot to update the expired array in any proper way so this change almost breaks stuff at the moment in the shape it's in. Please disregard this change for now apart from interest in how I'm tackling the nice issue. -- -ck