On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 08:37:11AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
I never had such an argument. I like fairness.
My argument is that -you- don't have an argument for making fairness a
-requirement-.
If you make one form of fairness a -requirement- for all acceptable
algorithms, your -are- precluding most other forms of fairness.
If you refuse to define what "fairness" means when specifying your
requirement, what's the point of requiring it?
I don't know what optimal behavior is. And neither do you. It may or
may not be fair. It very likely includes small deviations from fair.
Ok, trivial example. You cannot allocate equal CPU time to
processes/tasks and simultaneously allocate equal time to thread
groups. Is it common sense that a heavily-threaded app should be able
to get hugely more CPU than a well-written app? No. I don't want Joe's
stupid Java app to make my compile crawl.
On the other hand, if my heavily threaded app is, say, a voicemail
server serving 30 customers, I probably want it to get 30x the CPU of
my gzip job.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
