Al Boldi wrote:
Proper scheduling in a multi-tasking environment is critical to the success
of a desktop OS. Linux, being mainly a server OS, is currently tuned to
scheduling defaults that may be appropriate only for the server scenario.
I'm not sure I would agree about distribution kernels, and kernel.org
kernels certainly have the options to trade overhead for more response.
To enable Linux to play an effective role on the desktop, a more flexible
approach is necessary. An approach that would allow the end-User the
freedom to adjust the OS to the specific environment at hand.
So instead of forcing a one-size fits all approach on the end-User, would not
exporting sched.c tunables to the procfs present a flexible approach to the
scheduling dilemma?
Let me agree with Mike and Con, I understand just well enough to pretty
much leave them alone. The swappiness is available, that's one of the
things which wants tuning. But the old 2.2 kernels did run better on
small machines, even a stripped 2.6 kernel is slower.
All comments that have a vested interest in enabling Linux on the desktop are
most welcome, even if they describe other/better/smarter approaches.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-smp" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
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]
