From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965636AbXCLLXO (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:23:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965625AbXCLLXO (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:23:14 -0400 Received: from [212.12.190.74] ([212.12.190.74]:32898 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965646AbXCLLXN (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:23:13 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Con Kolivas Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] RSDL completely fair starvation free interactive cpu scheduler Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:26:00 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: ck list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200703042335.26785.a1426z@gawab.com> <200703120742.41041.a1426z@gawab.com> <200703121553.30462.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200703121553.30462.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200703121426.00854.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: > On Monday 12 March 2007 15:42, Al Boldi wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > And thank you! I think I know what's going on now. I think each > > > > rotation is followed by another rotation before the higher priority > > > > task is getting a look in in schedule() to even get quota and add it > > > > to the runqueue quota. I'll try a simple change to see if that > > > > helps. Patch coming up shortly. > > > > > > Can you try the following patch and see if it helps. There's also one > > > minor preemption logic fix in there that I'm planning on including. > > > Thanks! > > > > Applied on top of v0.28 mainline, and there is no difference. > > > > What's it look like on your machine? > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority one > runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amount. > Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets precisely > RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority task gets > RR_INTERVAL min and full expiration (according to the virtual deadline) as > a maximum. That's exactly how I intend it to work. Yes I realise that the > max latency ends up being longer intermittently on the niced task but > that's -in my opinion- perfectly fine as a compromise to ensure the nice 0 > one always gets low latency. I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency across the rotation, should it not? Thanks! -- Al