From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262102AbVDRPRg (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:17:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262097AbVDRPRf (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:17:35 -0400 Received: from mail.ccur.com ([208.248.32.212]:7080 "EHLO flmx.iccur.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262103AbVDRPRO (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:17:14 -0400 Subject: nonlinear timeslice gap? From: Jason Baietto To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com, mingo@elte.hu Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1113837431.26528.39.camel@sprout> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-1) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:17:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2005 15:17:12.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2479230:01C54429] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ChangeSet 1.1832.6.22 (2004/08/24 11:10:51 mingo@elte.hu) introduced the following time slice mapping for nice values: [ -20 ... 0 ... 19 ] => [800ms ... 100ms ... 5ms] This met the goal of a 1:160 ratio for nice-20/nice+19, however it introduced a 320ms gap between 0 and -1. Was this gap intentional or accidental, and is it really acceptable? Here's the full mapping (verified by sched_rr_get_interval): -20 => 800ms -19 => 780ms -18 => 760ms -17 => 740ms -16 => 720ms -15 => 700ms -14 => 680ms -13 => 660ms -12 => 640ms -11 => 620ms -10 => 600ms -9 => 580ms -8 => 560ms -7 => 540ms -6 => 520ms -5 => 500ms -4 => 480ms -3 => 460ms -2 => 440ms -1 => 420ms *** gap *** 0 => 100ms 1 => 95ms 2 => 90ms 3 => 85ms 4 => 80ms 5 => 75ms 6 => 70ms 7 => 65ms 8 => 60ms 9 => 55ms 10 => 50ms 11 => 45ms 12 => 40ms 13 => 35ms 14 => 30ms 15 => 25ms 16 => 20ms 17 => 15ms 18 => 10ms 19 => 5ms Take care, Jason -- jason.baietto@ccur.com http://www.ccur.com/oss