From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261184AbUGHXc2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:32:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261347AbUGHXc2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:32:28 -0400 Received: from gizmo09ps.bigpond.com ([144.140.71.19]:17111 "HELO gizmo09ps.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261184AbUGHXcU (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:32:20 -0400 Message-ID: <40EDD980.4040608@bigpond.net.au> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 09:32:16 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Povolotsky, Alexander" CC: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , "'Mike Galbraith'" , "'akpm@osdl.org'" , "'rml@tech9.net'" , "'Ingo Molnar'" , "'Con Kolivas'" , "'Elladan'" , "'Chris Siebenmann'" Subject: Re: Maximum frequency of re-scheduling (minimum time quantum ) que stio n References: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF08F42FE6@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> In-Reply-To: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF08F42FE6@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Povolotsky, Alexander wrote: > Hi Peter, > > >>By freeing "time slice"s from their involvement in active/expired >>priority array switching etc., the various single priority array >>schedulers (e.g. Con Kolivas's staircase scheduler and my SPA "pb" and >>"eb" schedulers) that are under development raise the possibility of >>allowing the time slice for SCHED_RR tasks to be different to that of >>ordinary tasks or even for it to be set separately for each SCHED_RR >>task. Whether this is desirable or not is another question. > > > IMHO (I am new in Linux),- if this functionality could be either optionally > configured at compile time or be optionally invokable at run time (or > combination of both) - why not to have it ? - this addition enhances choices > of scheduling, > which is good. > > Is there a chance such functionality will make into Linux 2.6 as a patch (at > some later time) ? Not until the current scheduler is replaced with a single priority array scheduler. However, if there's enough interest, I could add this functionality to the CPU scheduler evaluation patch so that people could experiment with it (BUT it would be at the bottom of my to do list). > > By the way - what is the "mechanism" of decision making process (among Linux > kernel developers) on such things ? I'll leave this question to someone more knowledgeable. Pete -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce