Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12

[Nick Piggin]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:54:04AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >
> > > > Backboost is gone so X really should be at -10 or even higher.
> > > Wasn't that causing half the problems originally? Boosting X seemed
> > > to starve xmms et al. Or do the interactivity changes fix xmms
> > > somehow, but not X itself? Explicitly fiddling with task's priorities
> > > seems flawed to me.
> > Wasn't it the larger timeslices with lower nice values in stock and Con's
> > patches that made X with nice -10 a bad idea?
>
> Debian renices X by default to -10 ... I fixed all my desktop interactivity
> problems around 2.5.63 timeframe by just turning that off. That was way 
> before Con's patches.

Yep, as Mike mentioned, renicing X causes it to get bigger
timeslices with the stock scheduler. If you had 2 nice -20 processes,
they would each get a timeslice of 200ms, so you're harming their
latency.

> There may be some more details around this, and I'd love to hear them,
> but I fundmantally believe that explitit fiddling with particular
> processes because we believe they're somehow magic is wrong (and so
> does Linus, from previous discussions).

Well it would be nice if someone could find out how to do it, but I
think that if we want X to be able to get 80% CPU when 2 other CPU hogs
are running, you have to renice it.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/