When I checked to see how many cpu burst that were
actually less than the quantum I got .8 %.
Which seems really low. Correct me if I am wrong.
But shouldn't it be more like about 80% of cpu burst < quantum?
I was running a total count on goodness calls where there was still
counter, then totalled the amount that relinquished control before the
end of the quantum.
inside of goodness function on if (weight)... I did the total count,
and in if (p == prev) i did the other.
Again if I am in error here please set me strait on where to go. :)
---Rik van Riel <H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Jaime Fournier wrote:
>
> > Well increasing the goodness will no doubt make the current process
> > snappier.
>
> No, it will make a non-niced process snappier when it's timeslice
> isn't exhausted yet. This gives a huge advantage to modplayers,
> mp3 players and other multimedia stuff that never uses it's
> timeslice completely.
>
> > But it is still a little far from making an effectivly round robin
> > scheduler into a multi-level feedback scheduler with multiple
queues.
>
> It wasn't meant as such. It's just a quick hack while we're
> waiting for a real scheduler replacement :-)
>
> Rik.
>
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
> | Linux: - LinuxHQ MM-patches page | Scouting
webmaster |
> | - kswapd ask-him & complain-to guy | Vries cubscout
leader |
> | http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~riel/ |
<H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl> |
>
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu