Con Kolivas wrote: > On Monday 12 March 2007 15:42, Al Boldi wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Monday 12 March 2007 08:52, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > And thank you! I think I know what's going on now. I think each > > > > rotation is followed by another rotation before the higher priority > > > > task is getting a look in in schedule() to even get quota and add it > > > > to the runqueue quota. I'll try a simple change to see if that > > > > helps. Patch coming up shortly. > > > > > > Can you try the following patch and see if it helps. There's also one > > > minor preemption logic fix in there that I'm planning on including. > > > Thanks! > > > > Applied on top of v0.28 mainline, and there is no difference. > > > > What's it look like on your machine? > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority one > runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration amount. > Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task gets precisely > RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower priority task gets > RR_INTERVAL min and full expiration (according to the virtual deadline) as > a maximum. That's exactly how I intend it to work. Yes I realise that the > max latency ends up being longer intermittently on the niced task but > that's -in my opinion- perfectly fine as a compromise to ensure the nice 0 > one always gets low latency.
I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency across the rotation, should it not? Thanks! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
