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

[jos poortvliet <jos@mijnkamer.nl>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2718 bytes --]

Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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?

I do always nice down heavy games, it makes them more smooth...

-- 
Disclaimer:

Alles wat ik doe denk en zeg is gebaseerd op het wereldbeeld wat ik nu heb. 
Ik ben niet verantwoordelijk voor wijzigingen van de wereld, of het beeld wat 
ik daarvan heb, noch voor de daaruit voortvloeiende gedragingen van mezelf. 
Alles wat ik zeg is aardig bedoeld, tenzij expliciet vermeld.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]