lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 22 Apr 2007 09:18:25 -0400
FromMark Lord <>
SubjectRe: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote:
> 
>>> i've attached it below in a standalone form, feel free to put it 
>>> into SD! :)
>> Assume X went crazy (lacking any statistics, I make the unproven 
>> statement that this happens more often than kthreads going berserk), 
>> then having it niced with minus something is not too nice.
> 
> i've not experienced a 'runaway X' personally, at most it would crash or 
> lock up ;) The value is boot-time and sysctl configurable as well back 
> to 0.
>

Mmmm.. I've had to kill off the odd X that was locking in 100% CPU usage.
In the past, this has happened maybe 1-3 times a year or so on my notebook.

Now mind you, that usage could have been due to some client process,
but X is where the 100% showed up, so X is what I nuked.

Cheers
-
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: 2007-04-22 15:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2008