[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

> >about X doesn't sit well with me. I think the best you could hope
> >for there
> >_might_ be a config option _if_ you could show some significant
> >improvements not attainable by modifying either X or the kernel in a
> >more
> >generic manner.
> >
> Yes, this is exactly what Keith Packard did in this paper:
> . The X
> scheduler is certainly "smarter" by giving a higher priority to more
> interactive X clients. But I think guessing the importance of a
> client by the X server itself is flawed because the X server doesn't
> have a whole picture of the system. For example, it doesn't know
> anything about the "nice" value of a process. I think the kernel is
> in the best position to decide which process is more important.
> That's why I proposed kernel based approach.

Tasks can easily report their interactivity needs/nice value.
X are already depend on clients not trying to screw each other,
so thats okay.
Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...

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 13:48    [W:0.058 / U:1.916 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site