[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

    > I tried them aggressively; irman2 and thud don't hurt here. The idle
    > detection limits both of them from gaining too much sleep_avg while waiting
    > around and they dont get better dynamic priority than 17.

    Sounds like you've taken the teeth out of the thud program :) The original aim
    was to demonstrate what happens when a maximally interactive task suddenly
    becomes a CPU hog - similar to a web browser starting to render and causing
    intense X activity in the process. Stopping thud getting maximum priority is
    addressing the symptom, not the cause. (That's not to say the idle detection
    is a bad idea - but it's not the complete answer)

    What happens if you change the line
    struct timespec st={10,50000000};
    struct timespec st={0,250000000};

    and the line
    nanosleep(&st, 0);
    for (n=0; n<40; n++) nanosleep(&st, 0);

    the idea is to do a little bit of work so that the idle detection doesn't kick
    in and thud can reach the max interactive bonus. (I haven't tried your patch
    yet to see if this change achieves this)


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.018 / U:81.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site