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

    * Ingo Molnar <> 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?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-24 09:29    [W:0.020 / U:11.500 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site