![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sunday 28 September 2003 23:55, Nick Piggin wrote: > >I.E. with your new scheduler, priority levels actually have enough of an > >effect now that things that aren't reniced can be noticeably starved by > >things that are. > > 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. It's the old latency vs throughput problem. Nice only has a single linear metric, it says you want more or you want less but it doesn't say more or less of _what_. Rob - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||