Re: [PATCH] 2.5.72 O(1) interactivity bugfix

From: Nick Piggin (
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 04:00:27 EST

Nick Piggin wrote:

> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> At 05:33 PM 6/19/2003 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>> However, that will also send X and friends go off to the expired
>>>> array _very_ quickly. This will certainly destroy interactive feel
>>>> under load because your desktop can/will go away for seconds at a
>>>> time. Try to drag a window while a make -j10 is running, and it'll
>>>> get choppy as heck. AFAIKT, anything that you do to increase
>>>> concurrency in a global manner is _going_ to have the side effect
>>>> of damaging interactive feel to some extent. The one and only
>>>> source of desktop responsiveness is the large repository of cpu
>>>> ticks a task is allowed to save up for a rainy day.
>>>> What I would love to figure out is a way to reintroduce back-boost
>>>> without it having global impact. I think hogging the cpu is
>>>> absolutely _wonderful_ when the hogs are the tasks I'm interacting
>>>> with. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to determine whether
>>>> a human is intimately involved or not other than to specifically
>>>> tell the scheduler this via renice.
>>> Could certian drivers or subsystems say they are interactive and
>>> provide some input to the scheduler that way? Reads from input
>>> devices for example could increase a processes "interactivity" a
>>> lot, while writes to console or ... no, everything gets multiplexed
>>> through X, doesn't it...
>> The mouse and keyboard are wonderful candidates for this... there's
>> always a human connected. It's too bad there's no way to tell if a
>> human is staring at the display. If I'm mesmerized by xmms gl
>> eye-candy, it's a highly interactive cpu hog.
> Thats right, but console / DRI / whatever could probably provide a small
> interactivity boost.

Soundcard even...

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:00:29 EST