On Saturday 03 June 2006 06:53, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 3:13 AM
>
> > On Friday 02 June 2006 19:53, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > Yeah, but that is the worst case though. Average would probably be a
> > > lot lower than worst case. Also, on smt it's not like the current
> > > logical cpu is getting blocked because of another task is running on
> > > its sibling CPU. The hardware still guarantees equal share of hardware
> > > resources for both logical CPUs.
> >
> > "Equal share of hardware resources" is exactly the problem; they
> > shouldn't have equal share since they're sharing one physical cpu's
> > resources. It's a relative breakage of the imposed nice support and I
> > disagree with your conclusion.
>
> But you keep on missing the point that this only happens in the initial
> stage of tasks competing for CPU resources.
>
> If this is broken, then current smt nice is equally broken with the same
> reasoning: once the low priority task gets scheduled, there is nothing
> to kick it off the CPU until its entire time slice get used up. They
> compete equally with a high priority task running on the sibling CPU.
There has to be some way of metering it out and in the absence of cpu based
hardware priority support (like ppc64 has) the only useful thing we have to
work with is timeslice. Yes sometimes the high priority task is at the start
and sometimes at the end of the timeslice but overall it balances the
proportions out reasonably fairly.
--
-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]
