Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 13:30 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
What about the batch tasks? How do you ensure that they don't get
starved? Remember they're "batch" tasks not "background" tasks.
Here, batch means background. To make them batch as in only static
priority, I'd just do away with the second array. Batch as background
makes more sense to me, and since it's my ball and my playground... ;-)
In reality, both batch and background are useful distinct concepts. I
think of a batch task as one that needs to be treated fairly (in
accordance with its nice value) but for which fairness shouldn't be
broken to give it a boost as you might for an interactive task or media
streamer. I.e. doing useful work but not interactive or a media
streamer and the occasional long latency isn't a disaster.
Background tasks are ones where you don't care if they ever get any cpu
:-) except as necessary to prevent priority inversion.
In my schedulers I generalize background to "soft cpu rate caps" with a
cap of zero being the same as background. I have patches to add both
soft and hard cpu rate caps to the standard scheduler but I'm sitting on
them until things settle down a bit.
Anyway, schedulers based on single priority arrays (such as staircase)
are looking more attractive every day. :-)
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]
