From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Eric St-Laurent <ericstl34@sympatico.ca>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scheduler interactivity: timeslice calculation seem wrong
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:13:00 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200308191413.00135.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1061261666.2094.15.camel@orbiter>
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:54, Eric St-Laurent wrote:
> currently, nicer tasks (nice value toward -20) get larger timeslices,
> and less nice tasks (nice value toward 19) get small timeslices.
You mean this the other way round, no? +nice means more nice.
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
you can debate to the end of the earth, but application counts once you've
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.
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-19 4:06 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 [this message]
2003-08-19 4:23 ` Eric St-Laurent
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=200308191413.00135.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=ericstl34@sympatico.ca \
--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