On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:05, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 20:21, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> > Theoretically, with interactivity enhancaments, you'll never need to
> > renice X. In fact, I'm running X with no renice and it feels pretty
> > snappy.
>
> I know.
>
> I was wondering, since we are working on an actual bug here, whether or
> not renicing X is leading to a starvation issue between X and whatever
> is starving. I have seen it before.
>
> My system is responsive, too, and I do not renice X. But it might
> help. Or it might cause starvation issues. We have a bug somewhere...
Are you sure this should be called a bug? Basically X is an interactive
process. If it now is "interactive for a priority -10 process" then it should
be hogging the cpu time no? The priority -10 was a workaround for lack of
interactivity estimation on the old scheduler.
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:35 EST