[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Renice X for cpu schedulers
On 4/19/07, Con Kolivas <> wrote:
> The one fly in the ointment for
> linux remains X. I am still, to this moment, completely and utterly stunned
> at why everyone is trying to find increasingly complex unique ways to manage
> X when all it needs is more cpu[1].
[...and hence should be reniced]

The problem is that X is not unique. There's postgresql, memcached,
mysql, db2, a little embedded app I wrote... all of these perform work
on behalf of another process. It's just most *noticeable* with X, as
pretty much everyone is running that.

If we had some way for the scheduler to decide to donate part of a
client process's time slice to the server it just spoke to (with an
exponential dampening factor -- take 50% from the client, give 25% to
the server, toss the rest on the floor), that -- from my naive point
of view -- would be a step toward fixing the underlying issue. Or I
might be spouting crap, who knows.

The problem is real, though, and not limited to X.

While I have the floor, thank you, Con, for all your work.

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: 2007-04-19 21:29    [W:0.650 / U:1.284 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site