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.
-
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]
