> There's a distinction between giving it more cpu and giving it higher
I agree. Tasks that voluntarily relinquish their timeslices should get lower
latency compared to other processes at the same static priority.
Yes, that is the implication. The alternative to fairness is arbitrary
unfairness. "Rational unfairness" is a form of fairness.
I don't think it makes sense for the scheduler to look for some hint that
the user would prefer a task to get more CPU and try to give it more. That's
what 'nice' is for.
Then you will always get cases where the scheduler does not do what the user
wants because the scheduler does not *know* what the user wants. You always
have to tell a computer what you want it to do, and the best it can do is
faithfully follow your request.
I think it's completely irrational to ask for a scheduler that automatically
gives more CPU time to CPU hogs.
I agree. I'm not claiming to have the perfect solution. Let's not let the
perfect be the enemy of the good though.