On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 05:49 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
The testcase is perfectly valid. My buddies box has two full cores, so
we used two encoders such that whatever bandwidth is not being actively
consumed by more important things gets translated into mp3 encoding.
How would you go about ensuring that there won't be any cycles wasted?
_My_ box has 1 core that if fully utilized translates to 1.2 cores.. or
whatever, depending on the phase of the moon. But no matter, logical vs
physical cpu argument is pure hand-waving. What really matters here is
the bottom line: your fair scheduler ignores the very real requirements
of interactivity.
I don't know where you got that 95% number from. For the most part, the
existing scheduler does well. If it sucked 95% of the time, it would
have been shredded a long time ago.
Killing the known corner case starvation scenarios is wonderful, but
let's not just pretend that interactive tasks don't have any special
requirements.
-Mike
-
