> Maybe I have different a different idea of what "interactive" should be.
[snip]
> moving windows around the screen do feel jerky and laggy at best
> when the machine is loaded. For a normal desktop usage, I prefer all
> my intensive tasks to start releasing more CPU cycles so moving a
> window around the desktop feels completely smooth
That's fine for a desktop box, but I wouldn't really want a heavily
loaded server to have database queries starved just because somebody
is scrolling through a log file, or moving windows about doing admin
work.
The wordprocessor example is an interesting one - if the user is
changing fonts, re-flowing text and generally using it like a DTP
application, then I'd agree that it needs to have a more CPU.
If I was simply typing a letter, I wouldn't really care about
interactivity. If I was using a heavily loaded server to do it,
(unlikely), I'd rather the wordprocessor was starved, and updated the
screen once per second, and gave more time to the server processes,
because I don't need the visual feedback to carry on typing. Screen
updates are a waste of CPU in that instance - it might look nice, but
all it's doing is starving the CPU even more.
I propose a radically different approach to scheduling, why not
favour processes that cause the fewest cache faults? I.E. if a
process that gets more done in it's timeslice is more deserving of
it. It might look ugly with screen updates being starved, but it
would probably get more work done :-).
John.
-
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 Jun 23 2003 - 22:00:40 EST