Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:44:10 +0100 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: interactive task starvation |
| |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 03:32:40PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 01:28, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 01:19 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > What you're fixing with unfairness is worth pursuing. The 'ls' issue just > > > > blows my mind though for reasons I've just said. Where are the magic > > > > cycles going when nothing else is running that make it take ten times > > > > longer? > > > > > > What I was talking about when I mentioned scrolling was rendering. > > > > I'm talking about the long standing report that 'ls' takes 10 times > > longer on 2.6 90% of the time you run it, and doing 'ls | cat' makes > > it run as fast as 2.4. This is what Willy has been fighting with. > > ah. That's i think a gnome-terminal artifact - it does some really > stupid dynamic things while rendering, it 'skips' certain portions of > rendering, depending on the speed of scrolling. Gnome 2.14 ought to have > that fixed i think.
Ah no, I never use those montruous environments ! xterm is already heavy. don't you remember, we found that doing "ls" in an xterm was waking the xterm process for every single line, which in turn woke the X server for a one-line scroll, while adding the "|cat" acted like a buffer with batched scrolls. Newer xterms have been improved to trigger jump scroll earlier and don't exhibit this behaviour even on non-patched kernels. However, sshd still shows the same problem IMHO.
> Ingo
Cheers, Willy
- 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/
| |