Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263210AbTIFBTC (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 21:19:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262674AbTIFBTC (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 21:19:02 -0400 Received: from [203.221.72.243] ([203.221.72.243]:4868 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263210AbTIFBS7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 21:18:59 -0400 Message-ID: <3F5935EB.4000005@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:18:35 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Martin J. Bligh" CC: Mike Fedyk , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12 References: <3F58CE6D.2040000@cyberone.com.au> <195560000.1062788044@flay> <20030905202232.GD19041@matchmail.com> <207340000.1062793164@flay> In-Reply-To: <207340000.1062793164@flay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1592 Lines: 44 Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>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? >> > >Debian renices X by default to -10 ... I fixed all my desktop interactivity >problems around 2.5.63 timeframe by just turning that off. That was way >before Con's patches. > Yep, as Mike mentioned, renicing X causes it to get bigger timeslices with the stock scheduler. If you had 2 nice -20 processes, they would each get a timeslice of 200ms, so you're harming their latency. > >There may be some more details around this, and I'd love to hear them, >but I fundmantally believe that explitit fiddling with particular >processes because we believe they're somehow magic is wrong (and so >does Linus, from previous discussions). > Well it would be nice if someone could find out how to do it, but I think that if we want X to be able to get 80% CPU when 2 other CPU hogs are running, you have to renice it. - 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/