Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:12:20 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: O(1) scheduler & interactivity improvements |
| |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:18:29PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> > I don't consider compiling the kernel an interactive process as it's > > done almost automatically without any user intervention. XMMS is not a > > complete interactive application as it spends most of the time decoding > > and playing sound. > > > A kernel compile isn't interactive - sure. It may get some boosts > anyway for io waiting. This quite correctly puts it above a > pure cpu hog like a mandelbrot calculation.
Why? Not why does the scheduler do that, but why *should* a compile be in any way more deserving that a Mandelbrot? It isn't obvious to me that either are interacting with the user, and if they are it would be the Mandelbrot doing realtime display.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |