[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RSDL v0.31
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:44 -0800, David Lang wrote:

> why isn't niceing X to -10 an acceptable option?

Xorg's priority is only part of the problem. Every client that needs a
substantial quantity of cpu while a hog is running will also need to be
negative nice, no?

> if you overload the box enough things slow down, what scheduler avoids that?

(Hmm. What's overload in a multi-tasking multi-threaded world? I'm
always going to have more tasks available than cpus at some time. With
KDE, seems to be the norm any time I poke a button)

> where RSDL 'regresses' is with multiple CPU hog running at once (more then the
> number of real CPU's you have available) at the same priority, with one of them
> being the X server process.
> the initial report was that with X + 2 cpu hogs on 1.5 cpu's there's more of a
> slowdown (even with a nice difference of 5 between X and the other processes)

I see interactivity regression with both X and client at nice -10 in the
presence of any cpu hog load. Maybe a bug lurks. Maybe it's fairness.


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: 2007-03-17 09:49    [W:0.644 / U:1.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site