![]() Next message: jw schultz: "Re: Bugzilla bug # 322 - double logical operator drivers/char/sx.The body of a message to majordomo info at To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please pardon my stream-of-consciousness style in this post. Mean the CPU hog shares negative points with the other process? If one process is a CPU hog (or perceived as such), and it is blockingĪgainst another process, thus sharing interactivity points, does that Interactive, then, REALLY, you would want the sleeping of the second Now, if the other process is interactive, then you have a fight on yourĭoes the interactive process accumulate and share interactivity pointsįast enough to keep the other one moving well? If one process is Some other IPC) as a timeslice expiration. Simpler still would be to treat sleeping on a semaphor (or a pipe or ![]() That means you have to catch all other reasons and make sure you'veĪccounted for them, but you get the idea. Systems implementing one-to-one threads ( XP, Solaris 9, Linux ), use only SCS. Isn't in the list, you infer that it's timeslice expiration. If the process finishes its burst before the time quantum timer expires. Timeslice expiration isn't one of them, so whenever your sleep-reasons Whole list of different sleep-reasons (Schlafgruende?), it's just that Time-slice expiration in your heuristics, at least directly. Which I'm sure already happens, but the difference is that you do not What kinds of sleep a process does (counters of the various sorts), The situation is that both processes really ARE CPU hogs, but we don'tĭetect that based on using up the timeslice. On I/O or any other sleeping that WOULD indicate interactivity. The next thing to do is to somehow notice that the process never sleeps Not be able to achieve interactive status based on their sleep patterns. If certain kinds of sleep, such as sleeping on a semaphor, do not addĪny interactivity points, but the act of sleeping on a semaphor DOESĬause SHARING of interactivity points, then those two processes would One comment on two processes bouncing a semaphor. Next in thread: Felipe Alfaro Solana: "Re: Interactivity improvements".In reply to: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: Interactivity improvements". ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |