On Wednesday 14 March 2007 03:03, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wednesday 14 March 2007 02:31, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Monday 12 March 2007 22:26, Al Boldi wrote: > > > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency > > > across the rotation, should it not? > > > > Can you try the attached patch please Al and Mike? It "dithers" the > > priority bitmap which tends to fluctuate the latency a lot more but in a > > cyclical fashion. This tends to make the max latency bound to a smaller > > value and should make it possible to run -nice tasks without killing the > > latency of the non niced tasks. Eg you could possibly run X nice -10 at a > > guess like we used to in 2.4 days. It's not essential of course, but is a > > workaround for Mike's testcase. > > Oops, one tiny fix. This is a respin of the patch, sorry.
A few other minor things would need to be updated before this patch is in a good enough shape to join the rsdl patches. This one will be good for testing though. -- -ck - 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/
