[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean