From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030406AbWD1OAo (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:00:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030408AbWD1OAo (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:00:44 -0400 Received: from sv1.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.2]:50055 "EHLO sv1.valinux.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030406AbWD1OAn (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:00:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:55:41 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20060428.225541.124090656.taka@valinux.co.jp> To: kernel@kolivas.org Cc: maeda.naoaki@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, akpm@osdl.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 0/9] CPU controller From: Hirokazu Takahashi In-Reply-To: <200604282309.32320.kernel@kolivas.org> References: <200604282011.36917.kernel@kolivas.org> <44520581.3090404@jp.fujitsu.com> <200604282309.32320.kernel@kolivas.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, > On Friday 28 April 2006 22:07, MAEDA Naoaki wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > I agree with Mike here. It's either global resource management or it > > > isn't. If one user is using all interactive tasks and the other user none > > > it's unfair resource management. > > > > My intention was not to hurt interactive task's response, but it seems > > that just ignoring interactive tasks is not good. I'll consider > > regulating interactive tasks also. > > I appreciate the gesture of concern over interactive tasks :-) Unfortunately > it doesn't change the fact that interactive tasks can also consume large > proportions of the resources, and that any interactivity estimator will get > it wrong on occasion and flag a non interactive task as interactive. I think you can introduce some threshold to estimate whether a process should be treated as an interactive process or not while vanilla kernel defines it statically. It will make processes in a resource group consuming large cpu-time hard to be treated as interactive processes. Thanks, Hirokazu Takahashi.