Re: [PATCH] scheduler fixups ...

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On 2 Jan 2002, Peter Osterlund wrote:
> > > Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > a still lower ts
> > >
> > > This also lowers the effectiveness of nice values. In 2.5.2-pre6, if I
> > > run two cpu hogs at nice values 0 and 19 respectively, the niced task
> > > will get approximately 20% cpu time (on x86 with HZ=100) and this
> > > patch will give even more cpu time to the niced task. Isn't 20% too
> > > much?
> >
> > The problem is that with HZ == 100 you don't have enough granularity
> > to correctly scale down nice time slices. Shorter time slices helps
> > the interactive feel that's why i'm pushing for this.
>
> So don't give the niced task a new timeslice each time,
> but only once in a while.

Rik, this is part of the new architecture where tasks can spend the
virtual time they accumulated ( if any, dyn_prio > 0 ) one extra slice at
a time. This help in separating the time slice from the dynamic priority.




- Davide