On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:44 -0800, David Lang wrote:
> why isn't niceing X to -10 an acceptable option?
Xorg's priority is only part of the problem. Every client that needs a
substantial quantity of cpu while a hog is running will also need to be
negative nice, no?
> if you overload the box enough things slow down, what scheduler avoids that?
(Hmm. What's overload in a multi-tasking multi-threaded world? I'm
always going to have more tasks available than cpus at some time. With
KDE, seems to be the norm any time I poke a button)
> where RSDL 'regresses' is with multiple CPU hog running at once (more then
> the
> number of real CPU's you have available) at the same priority, with one of
> them
> being the X server process.
>
> the initial report was that with X + 2 cpu hogs on 1.5 cpu's there's more of
> a
> slowdown (even with a nice difference of 5 between X and the other processes)
I see interactivity regression with both X and client at nice -10 in the
presence of any cpu hog load. Maybe a bug lurks. Maybe it's fairness.
-Mike
-
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/
