Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:36:32 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12 |
| |
> Yep, as Mike mentioned, renicing X causes it to get bigger > timeslices with the stock scheduler. If you had 2 nice -20 processes, > they would each get a timeslice of 200ms, so you're harming their > latency.
Well, if I can be naive for a second (and I'll fully admit I don't understand the implications of this), there are two things here - either give it more of a timeslice (bandwidth increase), or make it more interactive (latency increase). Those two seem to be separable, but we don't bother. Seems better to pass a more subtle hint to the scheduler that this is interactive - nice seems like a very large brick between the eyes.
>> There may be some more details around this, and I'd love to hear them, >> but I fundmantally believe that explitit fiddling with particular >> processes because we believe they're somehow magic is wrong (and so >> does Linus, from previous discussions). > > Well it would be nice if someone could find out how to do it, but I > think that if we want X to be able to get 80% CPU when 2 other CPU hogs > are running, you have to renice it.
OK. So you renice it ... then your two cpu jobs exit, and you kick off xmms. Every time you waggle a window, X will steal the cpu back from xmms, and it'll stall, surely? That's what seemed to happen before. I don't see how you can fix anything by doing static priority alterations (eg nice), because the workload changes.
I'm probably missing something ... feel free to slap me ;-)
M.
- 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/
| |