Con Kolivas wrote:
quoted text
> > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority
> > > one runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amount.
> > > Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets
> > > precisely RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority task
> > > gets RR_INTERVAL min and full expiration (according to the virtual
> > > deadline) as a maximum. That's exactly how I intend it to work. Yes I
> > > realise that the max latency ends up being longer intermittently on
> > > the niced task but that's -in my opinion- perfectly fine as a
> > > compromise to ensure the nice 0 one always gets low latency.
> >
> > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency
> > across the rotation, should it not?
>
> There is a way that I toyed with of creating maps of slots to use for each
> different priority, but it broke the O(1) nature of the virtual deadline
> management. Minimising algorithmic complexity seemed more important to
> maintain than getting slightly better latency spreads for niced tasks. It
> also appeared to be less cache friendly in design. I could certainly try
> and implement it but how much importance are we to place on latency of
> niced tasks? Are you aware of any usage scenario where latency sensitive
> tasks are ever significantly niced in the real world?

It only takes one negatively nice'd proc to affect X adversely.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/