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:0.023 / U:117.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site