On Friday 02 June 2006 19:31, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 2:25 AM
>
> > On Friday 02 June 2006 19:17, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > What about the part in dependent_sleeper() being so bully and actively
> > > resched other low priority sibling tasks? I think it would be better
> > > to just let the tasks running on sibling CPU to finish its current time
> > > slice and then let the backoff logic to kick in.
> >
> > That would defeat the purpose of smt nice if the higher priority task
> > starts after the lower priority task is running on its sibling cpu.
>
> But only for the duration of lower priority tasks' time slice. When lower
> priority tasks time slice is used up, a resched is force from
> scheduler_tick(), isn't it? And at that time, it is delayed to run because
> of smt_nice. You are saying user can't tolerate that short period of time
> that CPU resource is shared? It's hard to believe.
nice -20 vs nice 0 is 800ms vs 100ms. That's a long time to me.
--
-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]
