hi :)

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:20:34PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> How about something more like this (yeah, untested, but you get the idea): 
> the person who wakes up an interactive task gets the interactivity bonus 
> if the interactive task is already maxed out. I dunno how well this plays 
> with the X server, but assuming most clients use UNIX domain sockets, the 
> wake-ups _should_ be synchronous, so it should work well to say "waker 
> gets bonus".

i used a similar method to correctly account resource usage
(cpu,energy,..) of processes in my diploma thesis:
work done by a sever (e.g. X) is accounted to the current client,
giving more resources to the server
http://admingilde.org/~martin/papers/

implementation is working but far from being mergeable...




RE: the patch, i think using sleep_avg is a wrong metric from the
beginning.

in addition, timeslices should be shortest for high priority processes
(depending on dynamic prio, not static)

but these are of course just simple statements and i don't have
a patch that makes a really good scheduler :(

-- 
CU,		  / Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen, Germany
Martin Waitz	//  [Tali on IRCnet]  [tali.home.pages.de] _________
______________/// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ///
dies ist eine manuell generierte mail, sie beinhaltet    //
tippfehler und ist auch ohne grossbuchstaben gueltig.   /
			    -
Wer bereit ist, grundlegende Freiheiten aufzugeben, um sich 
kurzfristige Sicherheit zu verschaffen, der hat weder Freiheit 
noch Sicherheit verdient.            Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)