On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
> We do prefer that TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE processes are woken promptly so they
> can submit more IO and go back to sleep. Remember that we are artificially
> leaving the disk head idle in the expectation that the task will submit
> more I/O. It's pretty sad if the CPU scheduler leaves the anticipated task
> in the doldrums for five milliseconds.
Indeed that has been on my mind. This change doesn't affect how long it takes
to wake up. It simply prevents tasks from getting full interactive status
during the period they are doing unint. sleep.
> Very early on in AS development I was playing with adding "extra boost" to
> the anticipated-upon task, but it did appear that the stock scheduler was
> sufficiently doing the right thing anyway.
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:27 EST