Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O6.1int | Date | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:21:41 +1000 |
| |
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:04, Danek Duvall wrote: > In 2.6.0-test1, the cc1 processes hover around 30 (early on they're
That's weird, unless you nice 5 them they shouldn't get any higher than 25. A quick code review doesn't reveal to me why that would be the case.
> lower, but they ramp up quickly). Xmms stays fixed at 20 pretty much > the entire time. X stays fixed at 15, though sometimes with heavy
Also weird; it's almost impossible to get stuck at the static priority. 20 is what a nice 5 application would be.
> window moving it'll skyrocket to 16. :) Mozilla typically is at 20,
Also sounds like nice 5
> but after lots of scrolling, it edges up slowly (and, I think, pretty > linearly) to 30. Scrolling's bad by the time you get to 23 (with the
Same thing.
> compile going; if it's the only interesting thing happening, it's smooth > all the way up). > > The jerkiness in mozilla scrolling repeatedly takes three to four > seconds before it shows up. Let it sit for a few more seconds and it's > good to go again, at least for another three to four seconds. > > The python process updating the portage database is in the 23-25 range. > > In 2.6.0-test1-mm1 with O6.1int, mozilla takes longer to get jerky > (15-20 seconds), but once it does, it gets stuck there pretty bad. Over > the 16 minutes it took to compile the kernel, I think I managed to get > it unstuck twice (maybe I didn't know how to do it right -- I kept > poking at it and maybe that was the wrong thing to do). When left > alone, it would settle at 24, though it would drop to 20 or 21 when > either raised to the top of the window stack or lowered to the bottom > (I'm using fvwm, in case that matters here). It would come back up to > 24 within a second or two. Any scrolling instantly brought it up to 27 > and climbing.
Same. (how >25 ?) > > X, cc1, and xmms all had the same behavior as in vanilla (roughly the > same amount of skippiness). > > The python process had a lower priority, spending most of its time in > the 17-20 range.
That's more consistent. > > One other thing -- xmms skips seem to cause it to spit out > > ** WARNING **: snd_pcm_wait: Input/output error > ** WARNING **: Buffer time reduced from 500 ms to 371 ms > > Not consistently one or the other or both, but at least one of those > would show up each time.
Not sure what these really mean.
> Hope this helps,
Not entirely sure. I'll continue reviewing my code.
Con
- 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) |