Re: RSDL v0.31

[Mike Galbraith]

On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:44 -0800, David Lang wrote:

> why isn't niceing X to -10 an acceptable option?

Xorg's priority is only part of the problem.  Every client that needs a
substantial quantity of cpu while a hog is running will also need to be
negative nice, no?

> if you overload the box enough things slow down, what scheduler avoids that?

(Hmm.  What's overload in a multi-tasking multi-threaded world?  I'm
always going to have more tasks available than cpus at some time.  With
KDE, seems to be the norm any time I poke a button)

> where RSDL 'regresses' is with multiple CPU hog running at once (more then the 
> number of real CPU's you have available) at the same priority, with one of them 
> being the X server process.
> 
> the initial report was that with X + 2 cpu hogs on 1.5 cpu's there's more of a 
> slowdown (even with a nice difference of 5 between X and the other processes)

I see interactivity regression with both X and client at nice -10 in the
presence of any cpu hog load.  Maybe a bug lurks.  Maybe it's fairness.

	-Mike

-
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/