Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote:
...and if you stick in a faster server?...

There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.

Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"? Which of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface events? _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X- server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity. Admittedly, that may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember which at the moment).

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
  -- Poul Anderson



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux