hi :)
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:20:34PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> How about something more like this (yeah, untested, but you get the idea):
> the person who wakes up an interactive task gets the interactivity bonus
> if the interactive task is already maxed out. I dunno how well this plays
> with the X server, but assuming most clients use UNIX domain sockets, the
> wake-ups _should_ be synchronous, so it should work well to say "waker
> gets bonus".
i used a similar method to correctly account resource usage
(cpu,energy,..) of processes in my diploma thesis:
work done by a sever (e.g. X) is accounted to the current client,
giving more resources to the server
http://admingilde.org/~martin/papers/
implementation is working but far from being mergeable...
RE: the patch, i think using sleep_avg is a wrong metric from the
beginning.
in addition, timeslices should be shortest for high priority processes
(depending on dynamic prio, not static)
but these are of course just simple statements and i don't have
a patch that makes a really good scheduler :(
-- CU, / Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen, Germany Martin Waitz // [Tali on IRCnet] [tali.home.pages.de] _________ ______________/// - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /// dies ist eine manuell generierte mail, sie beinhaltet // tippfehler und ist auch ohne grossbuchstaben gueltig. / - Wer bereit ist, grundlegende Freiheiten aufzugeben, um sich kurzfristige Sicherheit zu verschaffen, der hat weder Freiheit noch Sicherheit verdient. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:34 EST