[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.15-rc5: multiuser scheduling trouble
    Ingo Molnar wrote:

    >* Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
    >>Also, the most common case is that somebody has reniced the X server,
    >>which is just _wrong_. It used to be done by some distributions to
    >>try to help the scheduler make the right choices, but we've fixed the
    >>scheduler and it doesn't need it or want it.
    >>>Knowing the root password I renices his Xorg and firefox by 10, and
    >>>then everything is fine. His games are still ok, and my xterms are
    >>>snappy again.
    >does this mean X defaults to nice level 0, and then if you renice
    >Firefox and X by +10, everything is fine?
    Correct. X is at 0, adjusting to 10 helps. Adjusting only
    firefox is not enough.

    >Or is Linus' suspicion, and X
    >defaults to something like nice -5? (e.g. on Debian type of systems)
    It is a debian testing system, with some experimental/unstable stuff.
    The xservers are not reniced though, that has been configurable
    for a while and I turned it off at the time when the scheduler
    was changed and renicing no longer was recommended.
    top shows NI=o, ps aux shows no "<" for the xservers.

    >but ... i havent seen problems with Firefox and flash myself. My 3 years
    >old son's favorite kid's site is fully based on flash, and the 833 MHz
    >laptop is still usable remotely while he browses around on it. It's
    >Fedora Core 4, and X is not reniced.
    I guess this depends a bit on how the machine is used remotely.
    Light use of an xterm isn't always that bad - although "top" took
    a second to appear. The bringing up icewm and the xterms
    themselves took a lot longer though. I don't use it remotely,
    I log in on a second xserver running on a extra graphichs card.
    Even the relatively lightweight icewm is much heavier than simply
    ssh-ing into a box - there is graphichs work to do. I wouldn't be surprised
    if the usual three-second login took twice as long with a game going on, but
    half a minute is a bit excessive. I have only seen it that bad once,
    but the slowness is normally so noticeable that I bother with looking
    up the process numbers and renice them.

    >but if the X server is not reniced then it would be nice if i could
    >reproduce the starvation ... which site is the one triggering it? (and
    > is popular at the time. Lots of 2D scrolling flash
    games, and all seems to be made with the assumption that the more cpu you
    have, the higher framerate you should get. Never mind that the screen
    runs at 60Hz only. . .

    >could you check, and click around on it, does it
    >trigger similar starvation problems too?)
    No, I clicked around for a while, but was unable to drive the load up to 1.
    I never see problems with load<1 - as expected. Try a game that uses screen
    painting as a busy loop - it pegs the load at 1 no matter how powerful the
    machine is. And then the scheduling might get interesting. Running
    two such games at once tends to be slow for both, and also bursty in that
    one might get a second of nice speed, some slowness, and sometimes
    jerkiness with short stops in the action. Some of these games would be
    ok running at half speed, but not with such uneven speed.

    Sticking another cpu in the free slot would probably fix all this. :-/

    Helge Hafting
    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: 2005-12-12 12:17    [W:0.025 / U:79.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site