From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:38:05 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200308160238.05185.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F3BEA65.8080907@techsource.com>
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:00, Timothy Miller wrote:
> If my guess from my previous email was correct (that is pri 5 gets
> shorter timeslide than pri 6), then that means that tasks of higher
> static priority have are penalized more than lower pri tasks for expiring.
>
> Say a task has to run for 15ms. If it's at a priority that gives it a
> 10ms timeslice, then it'll expire and get demoted. If it's at a
> priority that gives it a 20ms timeslice, then it'll not expire and
> therefore get promoted.
>
> Is that fair?
Yes, it's a simple cutoff at the end of the timeslice. If you use up the
timeslice allocated to you, then you have to pass a test to see if you can go
onto the active array or get expired. Since higher static priority (lower
nice) tasks get longer timeslices, they are less likely to expire unless they
are purely cpu bound and never sleep.
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-15 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-04 19:50 [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity Charlie Baylis
2003-08-05 2:10 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-05 22:49 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-06 0:12 ` charlie.baylis
2003-08-06 1:23 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-06 22:24 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-11 8:14 ` Rob Landley
2003-08-11 23:49 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-12 0:17 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-12 15:04 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-12 23:32 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-13 15:46 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-14 6:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-14 6:59 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-14 7:01 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-14 7:46 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-14 20:03 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-15 16:40 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-14 20:00 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-15 16:38 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2003-08-15 18:12 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-17 2:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-17 18:00 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-14 19:57 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-15 16:35 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-15 18:17 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-16 2:29 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-14 19:54 ` Timothy Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-03 21:19 Voluspa
2003-08-04 2:34 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-03 10:14 Con Kolivas
2003-08-03 11:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-08-03 11:36 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-04 3:06 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-03 11:37 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
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=200308160238.05185.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miller@techsource.com \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/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