Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:22:32 -0700
From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12
Message-ID: <20030905202232.GD19041@matchmail.com>
Mail-Followup-To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
	Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <3F58CE6D.2040000@cyberone.com.au> <195560000.1062788044@flay>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <195560000.1062788044@flay>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 729
Lines: 15

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:54:04AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > Backboost is gone so X really should be at -10 or even higher.
> 
> Wasn't that causing half the problems originally? Boosting X seemed
> to starve xmms et al. Or do the interactivity changes fix xmms
> somehow, but not X itself? Explicitly fiddling with task's priorities
> seems flawed to me.

Wasn't it the larger timeslices with lower nice values in stock and Con's
patches that made X with nice -10 a bad idea?
-
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/