Con Kolivas wrote: > 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.
Applied against v0.30 mainline. It only works on prio +16 to +19. 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/
