Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:26:03 -0700 | From | "Ray Lee" <> | Subject | Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers |
| |
On 4/19/07, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> 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.
Ray - 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/
| |