[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:0.021 / U:20.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site