Re: Linux 2.6.0-test6

bill davidsen
2003-09-29T18:55:24Z

In article <3F77BB2C.7030402@cyberone.com.au>,
Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:

| AFAIK, Con's scheduler doesn't change the nice implementation at all.
| Possibly some of his changes amplify its problems, or, more likely they
| remove most other scheduler problems leaving this one noticable.
|
| If X is running at -20, and xmms at +19, xmms is supposed to still get
| 5% of the CPU. Should be enough to run fine. Unfortunately this is
| achieved by giving X very large timeslices, so xmms's scheduling latency
| becomes large. The interactivity bonuses don't help, either.

Clearly the "some is good, more is better" approach doesn't provide
stable balance between sound and cpu hogs. It isn't a question of "how
much" cpu, just "when"which works or not.

This is sort of like the deadline scheduler in that it trades of
throughput for avoiding jackpot cases. I think that's desired behaviour
in a CPU schedular too, at least if used by humans.
--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.