Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:22:32 -0700 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12 |
| |
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:54:04AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > Backboost is gone so X really should be at -10 or even higher. > > Wasn't that causing half the problems originally? Boosting X seemed > to starve xmms et al. Or do the interactivity changes fix xmms > somehow, but not X itself? Explicitly fiddling with task's priorities > seems flawed to me.
Wasn't it the larger timeslices with lower nice values in stock and Con's patches that made X with nice -10 a bad idea? - 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/
| |