lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy
Hi!

> >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:
> http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2000/smart.html . 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.
--
Pavel
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 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    [W:0.080 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site