Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964873AbWAWU7n (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:59:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964875AbWAWU7n (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:59:43 -0500 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:5034 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964873AbWAWU7m (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:59:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.2 for 2.6.16-rc1 and 2.6.16-rc1-mm1 From: Lee Revell To: Paolo Ornati Cc: Peter Williams , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Chris Han , Con Kolivas , William Lee Irwin III , Jake Moilanen In-Reply-To: <20060123215231.04b38886@localhost> References: <43D00887.6010409@bigpond.net.au> <20060121114616.4a906b4f@localhost> <43D2BE83.1020200@bigpond.net.au> <20060123210918.54d4fc75@localhost> <1138047938.21481.11.camel@mindpipe> <20060123215231.04b38886@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:59:38 -0500 Message-Id: <1138049979.21481.25.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.5.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1597 Lines: 40 On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 21:52 +0100, Paolo Ornati wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:25:37 -0500 > Lee Revell wrote: > > > This seems right to me, how do you expect X to be treated by the > > scheduler? > > Why moving the mouse a little (that causes a microscopic % of CPU > being used) makes X priority jump up to 29 from 6/7 ??? > And why this doesn't happen when glxgears (for example) is running? > (under cpu load this is different, with X never getting "good" > priority -- if I remember correctly) > > Maybe this is normal and depends on the way X sleeps or something... > Because the scheduler favors interactive tasks (aka those which spend a large % of time waiting on external events) and X is only considered interactive when the mouse is being moved. When glxgears is running it's CPU bound and is therefore penalized. > I don't know much about schedulers but if I'm able to make the cursor > going in jerks with just a bit of CPU load (linux$ make -j16, for > example) I wonder why X cannot get a better priority... > Personally I don't see how we can expect to deliver OSX-caliber multimedia performance using only generalized heuristics in the scheduler (other OSes use hooks into the scheduler for multimedia). At the very least it seems you need isochronous scheduling and a multi-threaded X server. Lee - 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/