On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > which allows xterm-spam (attached) to easily flood the xterm (without > any scrolling that would act as a throttle) and the xterm to flood Xorg. It's just an Xterm bug. Xterm will look for X input if it ever manages to fill the input buffer past 32768 bytes. If it manages to get more than 4096 bytes in one read, it will invoke sched_yield. and then check for input. Gotta love that sched_yield call. As it always processes all of the incoming data before trying to read again, there doesn't appear to be any way it can ever have more than 32768 characters in the buffer. And, as the kernel will not buffer more than 4095 bytes from a pty, there isn't any way it will ever read 4096 bytes. So, it sits there carefully reading every byte from the pty and painting them on the screen. You can 'fix' xterm with: $ xterm -xrm '*minBufSize: 4095' I hesitate to even suggest a patch to xterm that would solve this problem correctly. Note that xterm has kludges in several of the output processing steps which explicitly look for input (most vertical cursor motion, it seems), which is why any application which scrolls doesn't cause this problem. Do you need more reasons to switch to another terminal emulator? gnome-terminal has finally gotten reasonable; I expect rxvt or konsole would work just as well. -- [email protected]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- References:
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: "Vegard Nossum" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: "Vegard Nossum" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: "Vegard Nossum" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- Prev by Date: Fusion MPT regression, fixed or not?
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v18
- Index(es):
 |