Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

Con Kolivas
2003-08-04T03:01:09Z

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Reverted Ingo's EXPIRED_STARVING definition; it was making interactive
> > tasks expire faster as cpu load increased.
>
> hm, that bit was needed for fairness, otherwise 'interactive' tasks can
> monopolize the CPU. [ Have you tried lots of copies of thud.c (and
> Davide's irman2 with the most evil settings), do they still produce no
> starvation with this bit restored to the original logic? ]

I tried them aggressively; irman2 and thud don't hurt here. The idle detection
limits both of them from gaining too much sleep_avg while waiting around and
they dont get better dynamic priority than 17.

Con