Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:33:18 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3 |
| |
>> Right, being able to control this interactivity knob programmatically >> seems like a useful thing. That way, the window manager can boost the >> interactivity of the foreground window for example. It does seem that >> figuring out that something is interactive in the scheduler is tough, >> there is just not enough information, whereas a higher layer may know >> this for a fact. I guess this reduces my argument to just keeping the >> interactivity setting separate from priority. > > No no no. Martin's point shows exactly that nothing but the kernel can > ever know whether a task is I/O or CPU bound. What is bash? Is it > interactive (when you are typing into it) or CPU bound (when its running > a script or doing other junk)? > > Only the kernel knows exactly the sleep patterns of tasks, which is > essentially whether or not a task is interactive.
Exactly ... all this tweaking, and setting up every app individually is bad. It should "just frigging work" ;-) We seem to be pretty close to that at the moment - 2.5 feels *so* much better than 2.4 already (2.4 degenerates into a total slug overnight, presumably when things like man page reindexes thrash the page cache).
The fact that the debian renice of the X server actually breaks things is probably good news ... we're actually paying real attention to the nice value ;-)
M.
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |