Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response

[Kyle Moffett]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> ...and if you stick in a faster server?...
>
> There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local  
> filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other  
> as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O  
> should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.

Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"?  Which  
of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface  
events?  _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and  
precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that  
processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved  
away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X- 
server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even  
during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity.  Admittedly, that  
may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the  
interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember  
which at the moment).

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you  
looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
  -- Poul Anderson



-
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/