[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] O6.1int
    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:04, Danek Duvall wrote:
    > In 2.6.0-test1, the cc1 processes hover around 30 (early on they're

    That's weird, unless you nice 5 them they shouldn't get any higher than 25. A
    quick code review doesn't reveal to me why that would be the case.

    > lower, but they ramp up quickly). Xmms stays fixed at 20 pretty much
    > the entire time. X stays fixed at 15, though sometimes with heavy

    Also weird; it's almost impossible to get stuck at the static priority. 20 is
    what a nice 5 application would be.

    > window moving it'll skyrocket to 16. :) Mozilla typically is at 20,

    Also sounds like nice 5

    > but after lots of scrolling, it edges up slowly (and, I think, pretty
    > linearly) to 30. Scrolling's bad by the time you get to 23 (with the

    Same thing.

    > compile going; if it's the only interesting thing happening, it's smooth
    > all the way up).
    > The jerkiness in mozilla scrolling repeatedly takes three to four
    > seconds before it shows up. Let it sit for a few more seconds and it's
    > good to go again, at least for another three to four seconds.
    > The python process updating the portage database is in the 23-25 range.
    > In 2.6.0-test1-mm1 with O6.1int, mozilla takes longer to get jerky
    > (15-20 seconds), but once it does, it gets stuck there pretty bad. Over
    > the 16 minutes it took to compile the kernel, I think I managed to get
    > it unstuck twice (maybe I didn't know how to do it right -- I kept
    > poking at it and maybe that was the wrong thing to do). When left
    > alone, it would settle at 24, though it would drop to 20 or 21 when
    > either raised to the top of the window stack or lowered to the bottom
    > (I'm using fvwm, in case that matters here). It would come back up to
    > 24 within a second or two. Any scrolling instantly brought it up to 27
    > and climbing.

    Same. (how >25 ?)
    > X, cc1, and xmms all had the same behavior as in vanilla (roughly the
    > same amount of skippiness).
    > The python process had a lower priority, spending most of its time in
    > the 17-20 range.

    That's more consistent.
    > One other thing -- xmms skips seem to cause it to spit out
    > ** WARNING **: snd_pcm_wait: Input/output error
    > ** WARNING **: Buffer time reduced from 500 ms to 371 ms
    > Not consistently one or the other or both, but at least one of those
    > would show up each time.

    Not sure what these really mean.

    > Hope this helps,

    Not entirely sure. I'll continue reviewing my code.


    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: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.022 / U:0.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site