public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu scheduler: unsquish dynamic priorities
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:36:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051221093629.GA19867@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43A78E33.7040307@bigpond.net.au>


* Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> The problem:
> 
> The current scheduler implementation maps 40 nice values and 10 bonus 
> values into only 40 priority slots on the run queues.  This results in 
> the dynamic priorities of tasks at either end of the nice scale being 
> squished up.  E.g. all tasks with nice in the range -20 to -16 and the 
> maximum of 10 bonus points will end up with a dynamic priority of 
> MAX_RT_PRIO and all tasks with nice in the range 15 to 19 and no bonus 
> points will end up with a dynamic priority of MAX_PRIO - 1.
> 
> Although the fact that niceness is primarily implemented by time slice 
> size means that this will have little or no adverse effect on the long 
> term allocation of CPU resources due to niceness, it could adversely 
> effect latency as it will interfere with preemption.

this property of the priority distribution was intentional from me, i 
wanted to have an easy way to test 'no priority boosting downwards' 
(nice +19) and 'no priority boosting upwards' (nice -20) conditions. But 
i like your patch, because it simplifies effective_prio() a bit, and 
with SCHED_BATCH we'll have the 'no boosting' property anyway. Could you 
redo the patch against the current scheduler queue in -mm, so that we 
can try it out in -mm?

Btw., another user-visible effect is that task_prio() will return the 
new range, which will be visible in e.g. 'top'. I dont think it will be 
confusing though.

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-12-21  9:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-12-20  4:53 [PATCH] cpu scheduler: unsquish dynamic priorities Peter Williams
2005-12-21  5:21 ` Peter Williams
2005-12-21  9:36 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-12-22  0:41   ` Peter Williams
2006-01-06  5:22     ` Peter Williams

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=20051221093629.GA19867@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
    /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