From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>,
Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
Subject: Re: Interactivity improvements
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 07:15:29 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200308070715.29461.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F314D6B.9090302@techsource.com>
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 04:48, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Here's a kooky idea...
>
> I'm not sure about this detail, but I would guess that the int
> schedulers are trying to determine relatively stable priority values for
> processes. A process does not instantly come to its correct priority
> level, because it gets there based on accumulation of behavioral patterns.
>
> Well, it occurs to me that we could benefit from situations where
> priority changes are underdamped. The results would sometimes be an
> oscillation in priority levels. In the short term, a given process may
> be given different amounts of CPU time when it is run, although in the
> long term, it should average out.
>
> At the same time, certain tasks can only be judged correctly over the
> long term, like X, for example. Its long-term behavior is interactive,
> but now and then, it will become a CPU hog, and we want to LET it.
>
> The idea I'm proposing, however poorly formed, is that if we allow some
> "excessive" oscillation early on in the life of a process, we may be
> able to more quickly get processes to NEAR its correct priority, OR get
> its CPU time over the course of three times being run for the
> underdamped case to be about the same as it would be if we knew in
> advance what the priority should be. But in the underdamped case, the
> priority would continue to oscillate up and down around the correct
> level, because we are intentionally overshooting the mark each time we
> adjust priority.
>
> This may not be related, but something that pops into my mind is a
> numerical method called Newton's Method. It's a way to solve for roots
> of an equation, and it involved derivatives, and I don't quite remember
> how it works. But in any event, the results are less accurate than,
> say, bisection, but you get to the answer MUCH more quickly.
Good thinking, but this is more or less already done in my code. I do have
very rapid elevation of priority, and once something is known interactive it
decays more slowly. It still _must_ be able to vary after the fact as
interactive tasks can turn into cpu hogs and so on.
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-06 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-04 16:07 [PATCH] O13int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-04 18:24 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-04 19:15 ` Antonio Vargas
2003-08-04 21:32 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-04 20:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-04 22:11 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 7:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-05 2:11 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 2:20 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 2:21 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 3:06 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 3:17 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-06 18:48 ` Interactivity improvements Timothy Miller
2003-08-06 19:01 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-06 20:09 ` Helge Hafting
2003-08-06 21:15 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-08-05 3:18 ` [PATCH] O13int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 3:31 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 5:04 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 5:12 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 5:16 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 5:28 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 10:22 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 10:32 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 10:45 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 10:48 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 10:56 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 11:03 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 11:12 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 11:23 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-05 11:34 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 10:54 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-08-05 11:10 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-06 21:33 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-06 21:33 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-07 0:27 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-07 0:27 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-07 0:44 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-11 6:48 ` Rob Landley
2003-08-11 15:47 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-12 2:51 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-12 6:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-12 7:07 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-12 7:18 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-12 9:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-12 21:11 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-13 6:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-12 9:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-12 9:37 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-12 9:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-12 10:29 ` Rob Landley
2003-08-12 11:08 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-12 11:35 ` Rob Landley
2003-08-12 11:58 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-13 2:08 ` jw schultz
2003-08-13 3:07 ` Gene Heskett
2003-08-13 3:24 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-13 5:24 ` Gene Heskett
2003-08-13 5:43 ` Andrew McGregor
2003-08-13 12:33 ` Gene Heskett
2003-08-14 5:03 ` Andrew McGregor
2003-08-14 10:48 ` Gene Heskett
2003-08-12 15:36 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-05 6:03 ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-05 7:26 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 8:12 ` Oliver Neukum
2003-08-05 8:20 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 8:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-05 8:43 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 9:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-05 9:19 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 10:04 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-11 6:57 ` Rob Landley
2003-08-11 15:58 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-05 7:53 ` Mike Galbraith
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-07 14:26 Interactivity improvements Patrick McLean
2003-08-07 15:24 ` Richard Curnow
2003-08-07 15:42 ` Patrick McLean
2003-08-07 18:33 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-07 20:48 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-07 21:26 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2003-08-07 23:05 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-07 15:31 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-07 17:41 ` Robert Love
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200308070715.29461.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miller@techsource.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.