Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:23:00 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers |
| |
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:50:20AM -0700, Ray Lee wrote: > > Firstly, lots of clients in your list are remote. X usually isn't. > > They really aren't, unless you happen to work somewhere that can afford > to dedicate a box to a db, which suddenly makes the scheduler a dull > topic. > > For example, I have a db and web server installed on my laptop, so > that the few times that I have to do web app programming (while wearing > a mustache and glasses so that I don't have to admit to it in polite > company), I can be functional with just one computer.
Indeed. The vast majority of people doing "LAMP" web services are doing it on a single machine. Or VM for that matter.
It seems that this is a lot like the priority inheritance problem. If a nice -19 process blocks on the db running at nice 0, the db ought to get a boost until it wakes the original process up. The same should apply at the level of dynamic priorities at the same nice level.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
| |