Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

[Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca>]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 19 April 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > s go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out cpu
> >
> > > bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd simplicity
> > > of renicing, why keep fighting it? Again I reiterate that most users of
> > > SD have not found the need to renice X anyway except if they stick to old
> > > habits of make -j4 on uniprocessor and the like, and I expect that those
> > > on CFS and Nicksched would also have similar experiences.
> > Just plain "make" (no -j2 or -j9999) is enough to kill interactivity
> > on my 2GHz P-M single-core non-HT machine with SD.
> >
> > But with the very first posted version of CFS by Ingo,
> > I can do "make -j2" no problem and still have a nicely interactive destop.
>
> Cool. Then there's clearly a bug with SD that manifests on your machine as it 
> should not have that effect at all (and doesn't on other people's machines). 
> I suggest trying the latest version which fixes some bugs.

SD just doesn't do nearly as good as the stock scheduler, or CFS, here.

I'm quite likely one of the few single-CPU/non-HT testers of this stuff.
If it should ever get more widely used I think we'd hear a lot more complaints.

Cheers
-
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/