Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: Bad interactive behaviour in 2.5.65-66 (sched.c) | Date | Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:33:03 +1000 |
| |
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:05, Robert Love wrote: > On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 20:21, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: > > Theoretically, with interactivity enhancaments, you'll never need to > > renice X. In fact, I'm running X with no renice and it feels pretty > > snappy. > > I know. > > I was wondering, since we are working on an actual bug here, whether or > not renicing X is leading to a starvation issue between X and whatever > is starving. I have seen it before. > > My system is responsive, too, and I do not renice X. But it might > help. Or it might cause starvation issues. We have a bug somewhere...
Are you sure this should be called a bug? Basically X is an interactive process. If it now is "interactive for a priority -10 process" then it should be hogging the cpu time no? The priority -10 was a workaround for lack of interactivity estimation on the old scheduler.
Con - 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/
| |