From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270641AbTHOSCZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:02:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270659AbTHOSCZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:02:25 -0400 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:46095 "HELO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S270641AbTHOSCY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:02:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3F3D23BD.6050608@techsource.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:17:33 -0400 From: Timothy Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: Timothy Miller , William Lee Irwin III , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity References: <20030804195058.GA8267@cray.fish.zetnet.co.uk> <200308141659.33447.kernel@kolivas.org> <3F3BE9BD.20304@techsource.com> <200308160235.05105.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: >On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:57, Timothy Miller wrote: > > >>>Actually the timeslice handed out is purely dependent on the static >>>priority, not the priority it is elevated or demoted to by the >>>interactivity estimator. However lower priority tasks (cpu bound ones if >>>the estimator has worked correctly) will always be preempted by higher >>>priority tasks (interactive ones) whenever they wake up. >>> >>> >>Ok, so tasks at priority, say, 5 are all run before any tasks at >>priority 6, but when a priority 6 task runs, it gets a longer timeslice? >> >> > >All "nice" 0 tasks get the same size timeslice. If their dynamic priority is >different (the PRI column in top) they still get the same timeslice. > > Why isn't dynamic priority just an extension of static priority? Why do you modify only the ordering while leaving the timeslice alone? So, tell me if I infer this correctly: If you have a nice 5 and a nice 7, but the nice 5 is a cpu hog, while the nice 7 is interactive, then the interactivity scheduler can modify their dynamic priorities so that the nice 7 is being run before the nice 5. However, despite that, the nice 7 still gets a shorter timeslice than tha nice 5. Have you tried altering this?