Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:10:42 +1000 |
| |
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 05:50, Charlie Baylis wrote: > > I tried them aggressively; irman2 and thud don't hurt here. The idle > > detection limits both of them from gaining too much sleep_avg while > > waiting around and they dont get better dynamic priority than 17. > > Sounds like you've taken the teeth out of the thud program :) The original > aim was to demonstrate what happens when a maximally interactive task > suddenly becomes a CPU hog - similar to a web browser starting to render > and causing intense X activity in the process. Stopping thud getting > maximum priority is addressing the symptom, not the cause. (That's not to > say the idle detection is a bad idea - but it's not the complete answer)
It was a side effect that it helped this particular issue. The idle detection was based around helping real world scenarios and it just happened to help.
> the idea is to do a little bit of work so that the idle detection doesn't > kick in and thud can reach the max interactive bonus. (I haven't tried your > patch yet to see if this change achieves this)
Good call; I was quite aware this is the most effective way to create a fork bomb with my patch, but it's effect while being noticably worse than the original thud is still not disastrous. Yes I do appreciate variations on the theme can be made worse again; I'm doing some testing and experimenting there to see how best to tackle it.
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/
| |