Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:25:53 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy |
| |
Hi!
> >about X doesn't sit well with me. I think the best you could hope > >for there > >_might_ be a config option _if_ you could show some significant > >improvements not attainable by modifying either X or the kernel in a > >more > >generic manner. > > > Yes, this is exactly what Keith Packard did in this paper: > http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2000/smart.html . The X > scheduler is certainly "smarter" by giving a higher priority to more > interactive X clients. But I think guessing the importance of a > client by the X server itself is flawed because the X server doesn't > have a whole picture of the system. For example, it doesn't know > anything about the "nice" value of a process. I think the kernel is > in the best position to decide which process is more important. > That's why I proposed kernel based approach.
Tasks can easily report their interactivity needs/nice value. X are already depend on clients not trying to screw each other, so thats okay. -- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...
- 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/
| |