Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:36:04 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.74-mm1 |
| |
Davide Libenzi wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>I agree some people have some inflated ideas about a desktop workload, >>but I'd just point out that if your mp3 player was using say 2% CPU, >>it should be able to preempt the make soon after it becomes runnable, >>and not have to wait at the end of the queue. It would become a CPU >>hog itself if you had 48 other processes running though. >> > >This is clearly true, actually even more since player usually suck way >less than 2% of the CPU. If no video is involved, they simply do a write() >to /dev/dsp and then they sync by calling GETOSPACE and sleeping in the >"hope" to be wake up almost in time. I never said that the scheduler >should not be fixed. It definitely has to. >
Well, yeah, I can run xmms on my 2xCPU system with 32 processes in an infinite loop, and 32 in an infinite loop of fork+wait. No skipping. So maybe gcc gets its priority elevated too much due to the small amount of waiting it does.
- 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) |