From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262573AbTHaKRx (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:17:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262574AbTHaKRx (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:17:53 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-245-93.webone.com.au ([210.9.245.93]:3079 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262573AbTHaKRv (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:17:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3F51CB44.3080805@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:17:40 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Kumlien CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [SHED] Questions. References: <1062324435.9959.56.camel@big.pomac.com> In-Reply-To: <1062324435.9959.56.camel@big.pomac.com> 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 Ian Kumlien wrote: >Hi, > >I'll risk sounding like a moron again =) > >I still wonder about the counter intuitive quantum value for >processes... (or timeslice if you will) > >Why not use small quantum values for high pri processes and long for low >pri since the high pri processes will preempt the low pri processes >anyways. And for a server working under load with only a few processes >(assuming they are all low pri) would lessen the context switches. > >And a system with "interactive load" as well would, as i said, preempt >the lower pris. But this could also cause a problem... Imho there should >be a "min quantum value" so that processes can't preempt a process that >was just scheduled (i dunno if this is implemented already though). > >Imho this would also make it easy to get the right pri for highpri >processes since the quantum value is smaller and if you use it all up >you get demoted. > >Anyways, I've been wondering about the inverted values in the scheduler >and for a mixed load/server load i don't see the benefit... =P > >PS. Do not forget to CC me since i'm not on this list... >DS. > Search for "Nick's scheduler policy" ;)