Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:22:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:22:21 -0400 Received: from nrg.org ([216.101.165.106]:33085 "EHLO nrg.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:22:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:22:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Nigel Gamble Reply-To: nigel@nrg.org To: Mike Galbraith cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: #define HZ 1024 -- negative effects? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Nigel Gamble wrote: > > > What about SCHED_YIELD and allocating during vm stress times? > > snip > > > A well-written GUI should not be using SCHED_YIELD. If it is > > I was refering to the gui (or other tasks) allocating memory during > vm stress periods, and running into the yield in __alloc_pages().. > not a voluntary yield. Oh, I see. Well, if this were causing the problem, then running the GUI at a real-time priority would be a better solution than increasing the clock frequency, since SCHED_YIELD has no effect on real-time tasks unless there are other runnable real-time tasks at the same priority. The call to schedule() would just reschedule the real-time GUI task itself immediately. However, in times of vm stress it is more likely that GUI performance problems would be caused by parts of the GUI having been paged out, rather than by anything which could be helped by scheduling differences. Nigel Gamble nigel@nrg.org Mountain View, CA, USA. http://www.nrg.org/ MontaVista Software nigel@mvista.com - 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/