Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:02:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:02:34 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:20393 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:02:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 21:13:47 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Christoph Hellwig , Robert Love , Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4 In-Reply-To: <3DF3A3FA.D1571CCD@digeo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1055 Lines: 24 On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > Yes, thanks. Will we also be seeing the "interactivity estimator" fixes > in 2.5? yes, but i'd like to clarify one more thing - worst-case O(1) interactivity indeed is indeed very jerky (eg. the fast window moving thing you noticed), but the normal behavior is much better than the old scheduler's. Just try compiling the kernel with make -j4 under stock 2.4 and _everything_ in X will be jerky. With the O(1) scheduler things are just as smooth as on an idle system - as long as your application does not get rated CPU-intensive. [which happens too fast in the case you described.] So we do have something in 2.5 that is visibly better in a number of cases, and i want to preserve that - while fixing the corner-cases discussed here. I'm working on it. Ingo - 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/