Re: Linux 2.6.0-test6

[bill davidsen]

In article <3F77BB2C.7030402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Nick Piggin  <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

| AFAIK, Con's scheduler doesn't change the nice implementation at all.
| Possibly some of his changes amplify its problems, or, more likely they
| remove most other scheduler problems leaving this one noticable.
| 
| If X is running at -20, and xmms at +19, xmms is supposed to still get
| 5% of the CPU. Should be enough to run fine. Unfortunately this is
| achieved by giving X very large timeslices, so xmms's scheduling latency
| becomes large. The interactivity bonuses don't help, either.

Clearly the "some is good, more is better" approach doesn't provide
stable balance between sound and cpu hogs. It isn't a question of "how
much" cpu, just "when"which works or not.

This is sort of like the deadline scheduler in that it trades of
throughput for avoiding jackpot cases. I think that's desired behaviour
in a CPU schedular too, at least if used by humans.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-
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/