From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test2-mm1 results
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:19:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59900000.1059664740@[10.10.2.4]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200308010113.02866.kernel@kolivas.org>
>> Does this help interactivity a lot, or was it just an experiment?
>> Perhaps it could be less agressive or something?
>
> Well basically this is a side effect of selecting out the correct cpu hogs in
> the interactivity estimator. It seems to be working ;-) The more cpu hogs
> they are the lower dynamic priority (higher number) they get, and the more
> likely they are to be removed from the active array if they use up their full
> timeslice. The scheduler in it's current form costs more to resurrect things
> from the expired array and restart them, and the cpu hogs will have to wait
> till other less cpu hogging tasks run.
>
> How do we get around this? I'll be brave here and say I'm not sure we need to,
> as cpu hogs have a knack of slowing things down for everyone, and it is best
> not just for interactivity for this to happen, but for fairness.
>
> I suspect a lot of people will have something to say on this one...
Well, what you want to do is prioritise interactive tasks over cpu hogs.
What *seems* to be happening is you're just switching between cpu hogs
more ... that doesn't help anyone really. I don't have an easy answer
for how to fix that, but it doesn't seem desireable to me - we need some
better way of working out what's interactive, and what's not.
M.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-07-31 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-29 14:37 Panic on 2.6.0-test1-mm1 Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-29 21:18 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-30 15:01 ` 2.6.0-test2-mm1 results Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-30 15:28 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-30 16:27 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-31 14:56 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-31 15:13 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-31 15:19 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2003-07-31 15:35 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-31 16:01 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-07-31 16:11 ` Con Kolivas
2003-07-31 21:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-07-31 17:03 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-07-31 22:37 ` Panic on 2.6.0-test1-mm1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-07-31 22:41 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-07-31 22:40 ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-01 0:15 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-01 0:18 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2003-08-01 0:20 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-01 0:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-08-01 0:53 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-01 0:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-08-01 1:02 ` William Lee Irwin III
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='59900000.1059664740@[10.10.2.4]' \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®