Messages in this thread | | | From | (bill davidsen) | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.0-test6 | Date | 29 Sep 2003 18:45:52 GMT |
| |
In article <3F77BB2C.7030402@cyberone.com.au>, Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
| AFAIK, Con's scheduler doesn't change the nice implementation at all. | Possibly some of his changes amplify its problems, or, more likely they | remove most other scheduler problems leaving this one noticable. | | If X is running at -20, and xmms at +19, xmms is supposed to still get | 5% of the CPU. Should be enough to run fine. Unfortunately this is | achieved by giving X very large timeslices, so xmms's scheduling latency | becomes large. The interactivity bonuses don't help, either.
Clearly the "some is good, more is better" approach doesn't provide stable balance between sound and cpu hogs. It isn't a question of "how much" cpu, just "when"which works or not.
This is sort of like the deadline scheduler in that it trades of throughput for avoiding jackpot cases. I think that's desired behaviour in a CPU schedular too, at least if used by humans. -- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/
| |