Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Al Boldi:
quoted text
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority
> > > > one runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amoun=
t.
quoted text
> > > > Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets
> > > > precisely RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority ta=
sk
quoted text
> > > > 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
quoted text
> > > > 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.

Then, maybe, we should start nicing X again, like we did/had to do until a =
few=20
years ago? Or should we just wait until X gets fixed (after all, developmen=
t=20
goes faster than ever)? Or is this really the scheduler's fault?

quoted text
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Al
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://ck.kolivas.org/faqs/replying-to-mailing-list.txt
> ck mailing list - mailto: ck@vds.kolivas.org
> http://vds.kolivas.org/mailman/listinfo/ck



=2D-=20
Disclaimer:

Alles wat ik doe denk en zeg is gebaseerd op het wereldbeeld wat ik nu heb.=
=20
Ik ben niet verantwoordelijk voor wijzigingen van de wereld, of het beeld w=
at=20
ik daarvan heb, noch voor de daaruit voortvloeiende gedragingen van mezelf.=
=20
Alles wat ik zeg is aardig bedoeld, tenzij expliciet vermeld.