Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12

[Nick Piggin]

Robert Love wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:39, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
>
> > Exactly.  Because the larger time slices for lower nice values came from
> > O(1), not Con.
>
> The larger timeslices may not help, but one reason why renicing X hurts
> multimedia is that it gives a preference to the GUI over the multimedia
> thread(s).
>
> Look at it this way.  Assume renicing X does not _help_ whatever the
> problem is (simply because the problem, in this case, is not stemming
> from X).  Then giving X the higher priority and larger timeslice only
> adversely affects the problem.
>
> So, since the multimedia thread in (say) xmms is really unrelated to X
> (its a separate thread and not doing any Xlib calls), it just hurts it.

Hi Robert,
Yeah you are right. Backboost is sort of an implicit renice though,
except it doesn't always go where you want it or when you want :(

I have found that is enough to have good scheduling latency to ensure
xmms skips are difficult to produce.


-
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/