Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

[Timothy Miller <tim@techsource.com>]

Con Kolivas wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:57, Timothy Miller wrote:
>  
>
>>>Actually the timeslice handed out is purely dependent on the static
>>>priority, not the priority it is elevated or demoted to by the
>>>interactivity estimator. However lower priority tasks (cpu bound ones if
>>>the estimator has worked correctly) will always be preempted by higher
>>>priority tasks (interactive ones) whenever they wake up.
>>>      
>>>
>>Ok, so tasks at priority, say, 5 are all run before any tasks at
>>priority 6, but when a priority 6 task runs, it gets a longer timeslice?
>>    
>>
>
>All "nice" 0 tasks get the same size timeslice. If their dynamic priority is 
>different (the PRI column in top) they still get the same timeslice.
>  
>

Why isn't dynamic priority just an extension of static priority?  Why do 
you modify only the ordering while leaving the timeslice alone?


So, tell me if I infer this correctly:  If you have a nice 5 and a nice 
7, but the nice 5 is a cpu hog, while the nice 7 is interactive, then 
the interactivity scheduler can modify their dynamic priorities so that 
the nice 7 is being run before the nice 5.  However, despite that, the 
nice 7 still gets a shorter timeslice than tha nice 5.

Have you tried altering this?