On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 07:13:22PM +0200, dittigas wrote: > Would this have anything to do with priorities? Debian starts X as root > with nice -10 by default.
With the stock 2.6 scheduler, X is not supposed to be niced, AFAICR. > Contrary to what is explained on preempt, X is even less responsive when > started with nice 0 e.g. Mice is slow and can notice little delays. But maybe your X is special :-) > Will appreciate any insights, Thanks. The interactive scheduler is an area that's seeing massive work at the momemnt. If you feel like testing, grab one of the interactive scheduler patches (Con Colivas or Nick Piggin's, at the moment) and give them a shot, and don't forget to post your impressions. For those who don't follow lkml, here's what Andrew Morton had to say: BEGIN AKPM QUOTE Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So it is quite sad that the scheduler in 2.6 is > sitting there doing nothing but waiting to be obsoleted, while Con's > good (and begnin) scheduler patches are waiting around and getting > less than 1% of the testing they need. My concern is the (large) performance regression with specjbb and volanomark, due to increased idle time. We cannot just jam all this code into Linus's tree while crossing our fingers and hoping that something will turn up to fix this problem. Because we don't know what causes it, nor whether we even _can_ fix it. So this is the problem which everyone who is working on the CPU scheduler should be concentrating on, please. END AKPM QUOTE - 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/ -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
