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