Re: [PATCH] O1int 0307021808 for interactivity

From: Con Kolivas (
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 09:34:49 EST

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:27, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2003 14:21, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Theory? uh erm it's rather involved but basically instead
> > of working off the accumulated sleeping ticks gathered in ten seconds it
> > works on the accumulated sleeping ticks gathered till it wakes up. It has
> > non linear semantics to cope with the fact that you cant accumulate 10
> > seconds worth of ticks (for example) if only 10 seconds has passed
> > (likewise for less time). Also idle tasks are no longer considered fully
> > interactive but idle and receive no boost or penalty. Finally they all
> > start with some sleep ticks inherited by their parent as though they have
> > been running for 1 second at least.
> I'm still pretty much in the dark after that. It says something about your
> patch, but it doesn't say much about the problem you're solving, i.e.,
> what's the Context? (pun intended)

Basically? Who gets to preempt who and for how long. The interactivity
estimator should decide that the correct task is interactive and get a
dynamically higher priority and larger timeslice. Is this what you're asking?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:00:19 EST