On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:36, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So, my point is, the nice level of X for desktop users should not be set
> lower than a low limit suggested by that particular scheduler's author.
> That limit is scheduler-specific. Con i think recommends a nice level of
> -1 for X when using SD [Con, can you confirm?], while my tests show that
> if you want you can go as low as -10 under CFS, without any bad
> side-effects. (-19 was a bit too much)
Nice 0 as a default for X, but if renicing, nice -10 as the lower limit for X
on SD. The reason for that on SD is that the priority of freshly woken up
tasks (ie not fully cpu bound) for both nice 0 and nice -10 will still be the
same at PRIO 1 (see the prio_matrix). Therefore, there will _not_ be
preemption of the nice 0 task and a context switch _unless_ it is already cpu
bound and has consumed a certain number of cycles and has been demoted.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not universal that a less niced task will
preempt its more niced counterpart and depends entirely on implementation of
nice. Yes it is true that context switch rate will go up with a reniced X
because the conditions that lead to preemption are more likely to be met, but
it is definitely not every single wakeup of the reniced X.
Alas, again, I am forced to spend as little time as possible at the pc for my
health, so expect _very few_ responses via email from me. Luckily SD is in
pretty fine shape with version 0.46.
--
-ck
-
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]
