lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.080 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site