Re: [PATCH] O1int 0307021808 for interactivity

From: Daniel Phillips (
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 11:29:29 EST

On Thursday 03 July 2003 16:34, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:27, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > 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?

I guess what I'm saying is, the problem is far from solved, however your
concrete results demonstrate you've got an intuitive grasp of how to go at
it. I'd like to dig in and find out what the deep issues are. As I've
basically ignored scheduling up to now, including all of the details of
Ingo's work, there's some background to fill in. Being lazy, I'd prefer to
read somebody's detailed [rfc] instead of going through the process of
reverse engineering it myself. I presume I'm not the only one.



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 - 22:00:20 EST