On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 21:52 +0100, Paolo Ornati wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:25:37 -0500
> Lee Revell <[email protected]> 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 [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]
