Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

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

 



* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:

> yeah, i guess this has little to do with X. I think in your scenario 
> it might have been smarter to either stop, or to renice the workloads 
> that took away CPU power from others to _positive_ nice levels. 
> Negative nice levels can indeed be dangerous.

btw., was X itself at nice 0 or nice -10 when the lockup happened?

	Ingo
-
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