Re: [RFC][PATCH] SCHED_ISO for interactivity

Guillaume Chazarain (
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:40:04 +0200

14/07/03 02:07:34, Con Kolivas <> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:54, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
>> Good, with ISO_PENALTY == 2, I can smoothly move big windows (with
>> ISO_PENALTY == 5 it was smooth only with very small windows), but it lets
>> me move them smoothly during less time than stock :(
>Less time than stock? I don't understand you. You can only move them smoothly
>for a small time or they move faster or... ?

With the previous SCHED_ISO, moving big windows was smooth for a short time,
but then it became jerky. Unlike with stock where it was smooth all the time.

>Indeed it is artificial, and probably never a real world condition unless it
>was specifically an attack, but it would never bring the system to a halt,
>just some minor audio hiccups while it adjusted.

This is also true for stock.

>> >The logical conclusion of this idea where there is a dynamic policy
>> > assigned to interactive tasks is a dynamic policy assigned to non
>> > interactive tasks that get treated in the opposite way. I'll code
>> > something for that soon, now that I've had more feedback on the first
>> > part.
>> Interesting, let's see :)
>> But as the interactive bonus can already be negative I wonder what use
>> will have another variable.
>As it is, the penalty will be no different to what it currently gets to (in
>the same way sched_iso get the same bonus they normally would). The
>difference is once they are moved to the different policy it is much harder
>for them to change from that state, always getting the maximum penalty, and
>being expired each time they run out of timeslice instead of getting a chance
>to be put onto the active array. Neither of these new states is very
>different to what normal policy tasks get except for the fact they dont
>change interactive state without a lot more effort.

OK, the latest SCHED_ISO fixed my problem, but now I am afraid of the scheduler
trying to be too intelligent, because if it makes the wrong choice the bad result
will be much more noticeable.
I like the simplicity of stock, the interactivity bonus is given in a simple and
understandable way, and if it's not given to the process you want, you can always
renice it or make it RT.

I have to admit that
if ((runtime - MIN_SLEEP_AVG < MAX_SLEEP_AVG) && (runtime * JUST_INTERACTIVE > p->sleep_avg))
p->sleep_avg += (runtime * JUST_INTERACTIVE - p->sleep_avg) *

are quite obscure to me.

Also, I don't understand your MAX_BONUS definition:
((MAX_USER_PRIO - MAX_RT_PRIO) * PRIO_BONUS_RATIO / 100) it evaluates to -15

I would use ((MAX_PRIO - MAX_RT_PRIO) * PRIO_BONUS_RATIO / 100 / 2) since it gives 5.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at