Re: [PATCH] Minor scheduler fix to get rid of skipping in xmms

[John Yau]

>
> Its actually more important when you have smaller timeslices, because
> the interactive task is more likely to use all of its timeslice in a
> burst of activity, then getting stuck behind all the cpu hogs.
>

Well, I didn't claim it'd be optimal, I just said that it's not worth the
extra effort.  The interactive task will still finish in O((interactive_time
/ timeslice) * #hogs + interative_time) ms.  As long as the cpu time
interactive tasks require are very short, they still should finish within a
reasonable amount of time.

> >
>
> Yes. Also, say 5 hogs running, an interactive task needs to do something
> taking 2ms. At a 2ms timeslice, it will take 2ms. At a 1ms timeslice it
> will take 6ms.
>

That's assuming that the interactive task gets scheduled first.  In the
worst case scenario where it gets scheduled last, at 2 ms, it takes 12 ms
and at 1 ms it also takes 12 ms.  Not much difference there.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/