On Tuesday 16 May 2006 05:01, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote on Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:03 AM
>
> > There would be no difference if the priority boost is done lower. The if
> > and else blocks both end up equating to the same amount of priority
> > boost, with the former having a ceiling on it, so yes it is the intent.
> > You'll see that the amount of sleep required to jump from lowest priority
> > to MAX_SLEEP_AVG - DEF_TIMESLICE is INTERACTIVE_SLEEP.
>
> I don't think the if and the else block is doing the same thing. In the if
> block, the p->sleep_avg is unconditionally boosted to ceiling for all
> tasks, though it will not reduce sleep_avg for tasks that already exceed
> the ceiling. Bumping up sleep_avg will then translate into priority boost
> of MAX_BONUS-1, which potentially can be too high.
Yes it's only designed to detect something that has been asleep for an
arbitrary long time and "categorised as idle"; it is not supposed to be a
priority stepping stone for everything, in this case at MAX_BONUS-1. Mike
proposed doing this instead, but it was never my intent. Your comment is not
quite correct as it just happens to be MAX_BONUS-1 at nice 0, and not any
other nice value.
> But that's fine if it is the intent. At minimum, the comment in the source
> code should say so instead of fooling people who don't actually read the
> code.
Feel free to update it to how you understand it now :) I have this feeling
we'll be seeing quite some action here soon...
> [patch] sched: update comments in priority calculation w.r.t.
> implementation.
--
-ck
-
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]
