On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:14, Al Boldi wrote: > 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.
I have an idea. Give me some time to code up my idea. Lack of sleep is making me very unpleasant. -- -ck - 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/
