Mikhail Panasyuk <otoko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 06.11.09, 17:33, "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > in it's current state violates scheduling rule declared in Be > > > Book / > > > Be Newsletter > > > (see volume III issue 45). > > I couldn't find any scheduling related content in that issue. > The rule I refer to: > 1) The likeliness for a thread to be scheduled increases with a factor > of two for such unit of priority. I just searched for it: it's in volume 4, issue 45, not volume 3. [...] > > > http://otoko.narod.ru/files/haiku/haiku_scheduler_part1.html > > > http://otoko.narod.ru/files/haiku/haiku_scheduler_part2.html > > There is obviously something wrong with the encoding set, so that > > Google > > cannot translate any of it. Would be nice if you could fix this. > Hosting problem. Document in UTF-8 with correct content-type meta-tag > but > server reports Windows-1251. Maybe because there is floating ad window > added by hoster... Anyway, I've converted htmls to Windows-1251, > should be > ok now. Indeed, thanks! Now I at least understand what you mean by "better": fairness. From you numbers it looks like the Haiku scheduler gives lower priority threads less chance to run if a higher priority thread wants to run. In the case of Haiku, it skips to a lower priority thread in 20% of the case, while the BeOS/Dano schedulers seems to be more fair. It might certainly be a good idea to check if the fairer approach feels good as well, or even better. > In real world even current Haiku implementation or old BeOS one should > be > good enough in majority of cases and they are. But I believe there is > room for > improvements. There is definitely room for improvements, I'm not saying that our scheduler is perfect; it just seem to work well enough. Bye, Axel.