lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.0-test6
    Date
    On Sunday 28 September 2003 23:55, Nick Piggin wrote:

    > >I.E. with your new scheduler, priority levels actually have enough of an
    > >effect now that things that aren't reniced can be noticeably starved by
    > >things that are.
    >
    > AFAIK, Con's scheduler doesn't change the nice implementation at all.
    > Possibly some of his changes amplify its problems, or, more likely they
    > remove most other scheduler problems leaving this one noticable.
    >
    > If X is running at -20, and xmms at +19, xmms is supposed to still get
    > 5% of the CPU. Should be enough to run fine. Unfortunately this is
    > achieved by giving X very large timeslices, so xmms's scheduling latency
    > becomes large. The interactivity bonuses don't help, either.

    It's the old latency vs throughput problem. Nice only has a single linear
    metric, it says you want more or you want less but it doesn't say more or
    less of _what_.

    Rob
    -
    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: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:4.227 / U:0.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site