Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: RSDL v0.31 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:46:27 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:44 -0800, David Lang wrote:
> why isn't niceing X to -10 an acceptable option?
Xorg's priority is only part of the problem. Every client that needs a substantial quantity of cpu while a hog is running will also need to be negative nice, no?
> if you overload the box enough things slow down, what scheduler avoids that?
(Hmm. What's overload in a multi-tasking multi-threaded world? I'm always going to have more tasks available than cpus at some time. With KDE, seems to be the norm any time I poke a button)
> where RSDL 'regresses' is with multiple CPU hog running at once (more then the > number of real CPU's you have available) at the same priority, with one of them > being the X server process. > > the initial report was that with X + 2 cpu hogs on 1.5 cpu's there's more of a > slowdown (even with a nice difference of 5 between X and the other processes)
I see interactivity regression with both X and client at nice -10 in the presence of any cpu hog load. Maybe a bug lurks. Maybe it's fairness.
-Mike
- 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) |