From: Eric St-Laurent <ericstl34@sympatico.ca>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scheduler interactivity: timeslice calculation seem wrong
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:23:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1061267029.2900.54.camel@orbiter> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200308191413.00135.kernel@kolivas.org>
> You mean this the other way round, no? +nice means more nice.
sure you're right. and i know that timeslices get asssigned based on
static priority (which is nice value rescaled).
> For the most part, most tasks start at nice 0 so they pretty much all get the
> same size timslices unless they get preempted. The rest of the discussion
i've read that tasks should start at higher dynamic priority with a
small timeslice (a priority boost for a starting task) then immediatly
drop to a lower priority if it use all it's timeslice.
> implemented theory. Changing it up and down by dynamic priority one way and
> then the other wasn't helpful when I've tried it previously.
maybe it's because the timeslice calculation is reversed?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-19 4:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-19 2:54 scheduler interactivity: timeslice calculation seem wrong Eric St-Laurent
2003-08-19 3:06 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-19 4:07 ` Eric St-Laurent
2003-08-19 5:23 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-19 6:54 ` Eric St-Laurent
2003-08-19 19:18 ` bill davidsen
2003-08-19 23:48 ` Eric St-Laurent
2003-08-19 23:54 ` Eric St-Laurent
2003-08-19 19:01 ` bill davidsen
2003-08-20 0:15 ` Eric St-Laurent
2003-08-20 0:32 ` David Lang
2003-08-20 0:48 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-20 4:11 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-08-20 4:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-20 13:59 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-08-20 16:18 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-08-20 2:52 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-19 19:02 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-19 17:51 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-20 2:41 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-20 18:45 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-19 4:13 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-19 4:23 ` Eric St-Laurent [this message]
2003-08-19 4:29 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-19 5:06 ` Eric St-Laurent
2003-08-19 6:18 ` William Lee Irwin III
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=1061267029.2900.54.camel@orbiter \
--to=ericstl34@sympatico.ca \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox