Messages in this thread | | | From | Ed Tomlinson <> | Subject | Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:17:36 -0400 |
| |
On Thursday 19 April 2007 12:15, Mark Lord wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Thursday 19 April 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote: > >> Con Kolivas wrote: > >> s go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out cpu > >> > >>> bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd simplicity > >>> of renicing, why keep fighting it? Again I reiterate that most users of > >>> SD have not found the need to renice X anyway except if they stick to old > >>> habits of make -j4 on uniprocessor and the like, and I expect that those > >>> on CFS and Nicksched would also have similar experiences. > >> Just plain "make" (no -j2 or -j9999) is enough to kill interactivity > >> on my 2GHz P-M single-core non-HT machine with SD. > >> > >> But with the very first posted version of CFS by Ingo, > >> I can do "make -j2" no problem and still have a nicely interactive destop. > > > > Cool. Then there's clearly a bug with SD that manifests on your machine as it > > should not have that effect at all (and doesn't on other people's machines). > > I suggest trying the latest version which fixes some bugs. > > SD just doesn't do nearly as good as the stock scheduler, or CFS, here. > > I'm quite likely one of the few single-CPU/non-HT testers of this stuff. > If it should ever get more widely used I think we'd hear a lot more complaints.
amd64 UP here. SD with several makes running works just fine.
Ed Tomlinson - 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/
| |