Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262095AbTIFDhZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:37:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262653AbTIFDhU (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:37:20 -0400 Received: from citrine.spiritone.com ([216.99.193.133]:40365 "EHLO citrine.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262095AbTIFDhS (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:37:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:36:32 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Nick Piggin cc: Mike Fedyk , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12 Message-ID: <6470000.1062819391@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <3F5935EB.4000005@cyberone.com.au> References: <3F58CE6D.2040000@cyberone.com.au> <195560000.1062788044@flay> <20030905202232.GD19041@matchmail.com> <207340000.1062793164@flay> <3F5935EB.4000005@cyberone.com.au> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1720 Lines: 37 > 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. Well, if I can be naive for a second (and I'll fully admit I don't understand the implications of this), there are two things here - either give it more of a timeslice (bandwidth increase), or make it more interactive (latency increase). Those two seem to be separable, but we don't bother. Seems better to pass a more subtle hint to the scheduler that this is interactive - nice seems like a very large brick between the eyes. >> 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. OK. So you renice it ... then your two cpu jobs exit, and you kick off xmms. Every time you waggle a window, X will steal the cpu back from xmms, and it'll stall, surely? That's what seemed to happen before. I don't see how you can fix anything by doing static priority alterations (eg nice), because the workload changes. I'm probably missing something ... feel free to slap me ;-) M. - 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/