lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

    * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

    > yeah, i guess this has little to do with X. I think in your scenario
    > it might have been smarter to either stop, or to renice the workloads
    > that took away CPU power from others to _positive_ nice levels.
    > Negative nice levels can indeed be dangerous.

    btw., was X itself at nice 0 or nice -10 when the lockup happened?

    Ingo
    -
    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: 2007-04-24 09:29    [W:0.022 / U:33.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site