Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 13:59 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:07:58PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I can make the knobs compile time so we don't see random behavior
reports, but I don't think they can be totally eliminated. Would that
be sufficient?
If so, the numbers as delivered should be fine for desktop boxen I
think. People who are building custom kernels can bend to fit as
always.
That would suit me perfectly. I think I would set them both to zero.
It's not clear to me what workload they can help, it seems that they
try to allow a sometimes unfair scheduling.
Correct. Massively unfair scheduling is what interactivity requires.
Selective unfairness not massive unfairness is what's required. The
hard part is automating the selectiveness especially when there are
three quite different types of task that need special treatment: 1) the
X server, 2) normal interactive tasks and 3) media streamers; each of
which has different behavioural characteristics. A single mechanism
that classifies all of these as "interactive" will unfortunately catch a
lot of tasks that don't belong to any one of these types.
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"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 [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]
