Re: new scheduler

[Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>]

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Ramon van Handel wrote:

> >- load-isolation between users (if user A and B run
> >  processes and A has 10 and B only 1, it would be
> >  fairer if both users each got 50% of the CPU)
> 
> Hmmm....  I prefer it the way it is.  Say I am doing a few big calculations
> (yes, I do that once in a while ;)) and some other user is playing xbill, I
> don't see why his xbill and my calculations would each get 50% CPU.

Ahh, but xbill doesn't ask for 50%. It's more that when one
user has a calculation and another user starts a fork-bomb,
that the calculation will still be able to get 50% of the
CPU...

> >- larger difference between niced and non-niced CPU
> >  usage
> 
> Hmmm... I thought the current system worked OK, but I could be wrong.

A lot of people have requested a larger difference. At the
moment a nice +10 task will get half the CPU of a normal
task and a nice +19 task will get 5%.

Now if a nice +10 task would get 10% and a nice +19 task
would get 1.x%, wouldn't that be a lot better?

> Anyway, you didn't put one thing on your list that I'd like to
> see:  could you document the code a bit more extensively than it's
> done now ?  That's always a good thing, and linux hackers rather
> tend to neglect it.

OK, I'll produce a web page on the scheduler (as soon
as it's finished) and put the URL in sched.c.

The technical details aren't all there yet, so I'm
not publishing :)

Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux Memory Management site:  http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/ |
| Nederlandse Linux documentatie:          http://www.nl.linux.org/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
Linux-future: thinking about the future of the Linux kernel
Archive:      http://humbolt.nl.linux.org/lists/
Wish list:    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0236/linux-future.html