Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265982AbTFWK16 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:27:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265983AbTFWK16 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:27:58 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:41856 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265982AbTFWK15 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:27:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:50:08 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200306231050.h5NAo8EE000843@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org, helgehaf@aitel.hist.no Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler & interactivity improvements Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1752 Lines: 38 > Maybe I have different a different idea of what "interactive" should be. [snip] > moving windows around the screen do feel jerky and laggy at best > when the machine is loaded. For a normal desktop usage, I prefer all > my intensive tasks to start releasing more CPU cycles so moving a > window around the desktop feels completely smooth That's fine for a desktop box, but I wouldn't really want a heavily loaded server to have database queries starved just because somebody is scrolling through a log file, or moving windows about doing admin work. The wordprocessor example is an interesting one - if the user is changing fonts, re-flowing text and generally using it like a DTP application, then I'd agree that it needs to have a more CPU. If I was simply typing a letter, I wouldn't really care about interactivity. If I was using a heavily loaded server to do it, (unlikely), I'd rather the wordprocessor was starved, and updated the screen once per second, and gave more time to the server processes, because I don't need the visual feedback to carry on typing. Screen updates are a waste of CPU in that instance - it might look nice, but all it's doing is starving the CPU even more. I propose a radically different approach to scheduling, why not favour processes that cause the fewest cache faults? I.E. if a process that gets more done in it's timeslice is more deserving of it. It might look ugly with screen updates being starved, but it would probably get more work done :-). John. - 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/