At 08:51 AM 1/5/2006 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
I think that some of the harder to understand parts of the scheduler code
are actually attempts to overcome the undesirable effects (such as those
I've described) of inappropriately identifying tasks as interactive. I
think that it would have been better to attempt to fix the inappropriate
identifications rather than their effects and I think the prudent use of
TASK_NONINTERACTIVE is an important tool for achieving this.
IMHO, that's nothing but a cover for the weaknesses induced by using
exclusively sleep time as an information source for the priority
calculation. While this heuristic does work pretty darn well, it's easily
fooled (intentionally or otherwise). The challenge is to find the right
low cost informational component, and to stir it in at O(1).
The fundamental problem with the whole interactivity issue is that the
kernel has no way to know if there's a human involved or not. My 100%cpu
GL screensaver is interactive while I'm mindlessly staring at it.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
