On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:47 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> >>> (communic
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > >> Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
> > > >
> > > > What happens when you renice X ?
> > >
> > > Dunno -- not necessary with the stock scheduler.
> >
> > Could you try something like renice -
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Bill Davidsen:
> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> >>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> >>> (communication with t
Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why splittin
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Radoslaw Szkodzinski:
> On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
> > X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
> > ...that I've been getting.
>
> Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not comp
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
...that I've been getting.
Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not computer programs.
Still, it's not a smart decision on KDE's part.
It wi
On 3/18/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
not really, only X sucks. KDE works atleast as good with rsdl as
vanilla. i dont know how originally said kde works worse, wasnt it just
someone that thought?
Couldn't agree more, been using RSDL+KDE for a week now, and as far as
I'm concer
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
>
> > I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> > (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
> > That's why splitting IO from a
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 13:50 +0530, jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
> maybe if it is possible to classify program behaviors that cause RSDL to
> do bad (relatively) or the mainline scheduler to jitter, we could try
> modifying the existing heuristics to get a better default scheduler.
>
> of course, it wou
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
>
>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
>> (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
>> That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should a
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
>
> > I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> > (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
> > That's why splitting IO from a
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
> That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should at
> least be ran in an anothe
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 07:47 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > So neither does a good job with this load.
> that sorely depends on what you mean by good job.
>
> It seems like what you call a good job is preserving the speed of the
> gui(X + a
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 19:23 +0100, Kacper Wysocki wrote:
> And for Mark and others who are as confused as I was, this is the
> thread that Mike meant to reference:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/503455/focus=6614
Nope, with all the back and forth (and noise), I lost track of which
t
On 3/17/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 13:03 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 17 March 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [...]
> >Xorg is using 50% cpu because I'm asking it to.
>
> What advantage is that giving you?
It's a test scenario. Read the thread
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 07:54 -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:33:41 +0100
> Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P
> > > > COMMAND 6599 root 26 0 174m 30m 8028 R 51 3.1
> > > > 7:08.70 0 Xorg
> > >
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:33:41 +0100
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P
> > > COMMAND 6599 root 26 0 174m 30m 8028 R 51 3.1
> > > 7:08.70 0 Xorg
> >
>
> This is a snippet from a hacked up by me version of RSDL.30
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:46:27 +0100
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 whi
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 07:09 -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
> I don't suppose you can be a bit more specific, and define how much CPU
> constitutes a "substantial quantity"? It looks to me like X already got
> about half of a CPU.
>
> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P COM
On Saturday 17 March 2007 07:07, jos poortvliet wrote:
> Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
> > so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement, if
> > it does not have comparable auto-nice properties.
>
> Wasn't the point of RSDL to get rid of the auto-nice, becaus
On 3/17/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 20:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> The most frustrating part of a discussion of this nature on lkml is that
> earlier information in a thread seems to be long forgotten after a few days
> and all that is left is the one r
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
> so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement, if
> it does not have comparable auto-nice properties.
Wasn't the point of RSDL to get rid of the auto-nice, because it caused
starvation, unpredictable behaviour and other proble
Freitag, 16. März 2007 wrote Mike Galbraith:
> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 08:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:34, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
