On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 20:48 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 14:20, Peter Williams wrote:
> > 3. Enforcement of caps is not as strict as it could be in order to
> > reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while holding
> > an important system resource with resultant overall performance
> > degradation. In effect, all runnable capped tasks will get some amount
> > of CPU access every active/expired swap cycle. This will be most
> > apparent for small or zero soft caps.
>
> The array swap happens very frequently if there are nothing but heavily cpu
> bound tasks, which is not an infrequent workload. I doubt the zero caps are
> very effective in that environment.
Hmm. I think that came out kinda back-assward. You meant "the array
swap happens very frequently _unless_..." No?
But anyway, I can't think of any reason to hold back an uncontested
resource.
-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]
