lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
Date
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> > > > Feels even better, mouse movements are very smooth even under high
> > > > load. I noticed that X gets reniced to -19 with this scheduler.
> > > > I've not looked at the code yet but this looked suspicious to me.
> > > > I've reniced it to 0 and it did not change any behaviour. Still
> > > > very good.
> > >
> > > Looks like this code does it:
> > >
> > > +int sysctl_sched_privileged_nice_level __read_mostly = -19;
> >
> > correct.
>
> Oh I definitely was not advocating against renicing X, I just suspect that
> virtually all the users who gave glowing reports to CFS comparing it to SD
> had no idea it had reniced X to -19 behind their back and that they were
> comparing it to SD running X at nice 0. I think had they been comparing
> CFS with X nice -19 to SD running nice -10 in this interactivity soft and
> squishy comparison land their thoughts might have been different. I missed
> it in the announcement and had to go looking in the code since Willy just
> kinda tripped over it unwittingly as well.

I tried this with the vesa driver of X, and reflect from the mesa-demos
heavily starves new window creation on cfs-v4 with X niced -19. X reniced
to 0 removes these starves. On SD, X reniced to -10 works great.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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 06:37    [W:0.049 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site