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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site