Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response | | Date | Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:36:45 -0500 |
| |
On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote: > ...and if you stick in a faster server?... > > There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local > filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other > as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O > should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"? Which of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface events? _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X- server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity. Admittedly, that may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember which at the moment).
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
-- I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson
- 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/
|  |