Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265291AbUF1XVi (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:21:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265288AbUF1XVi (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:21:38 -0400 Received: from gizmo09bw.bigpond.com ([144.140.70.19]:63446 "HELO gizmo09bw.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265294AbUF1XVg (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:21:36 -0400 Message-ID: <40E0A7FC.3030200@bigpond.net.au> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:21:32 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: Felipe Alfaro Solana , Con Kolivas , Michael Buesch , linux kernel mailing list , Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staircase scheduler v7.4 References: <200406251840.46577.mbuesch@freenet.de> <200406261929.35950.mbuesch@freenet.de> <1088363821.1698.1.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> <200406272128.57367.mbuesch@freenet.de> <1088373352.1691.1.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> <1088412045.1694.3.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> <40DFDBB2.7010800@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <40DFDBB2.7010800@yahoo.com.au> 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: 2048 Lines: 44 Nick Piggin wrote: > Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: > >> I have tested 2.6.7-bk10 plus from_2.6.7_to_staircase_7.7 patch and, >> while it's definitively better than previous versions, it still feels a >> little jerky when moving windows in X11 wrt to -mm3. Renicing makes it a >> little bit smoother, but not as much as -mm3 without renicing. >> > > You know, if renicing X makes it smoother, then that is a good thing > IMO. X needs large amounts of CPU and low latency in order to get > good interactivity, which is something the scheduler shouldn't give > to a process unless it is told to. I agree. Although the X servers CPU usage is usually relatively low (less than 5%) it does have periods when it can get quite high (greater than 80%) for reasonably long periods. This makes it difficult to come up with a set of rules for CPU allocation that makes sure the X server gets what it needs (when it needs it) without running the risk of giving other tasks with similar load patterns unnecessary and unintentional preferential treatment. However, I think that there is still a need for automatic boosts for some tasks. For instance, programs such as xmms and other media streamers are ones whose performance could worsen as a result of the X server being reniced unless it is treated specially and the boost they are given needs to be enough to put them before the X server in priority order. But renicing X would enable a tightening of the rules that govern the automatic dispensing of preferential treatment to tasks that are perceived to be interactive which should be good for overall system performance. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/