linux-kernel - Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:17:52 +1000
From:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To:	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

On Friday 20 April 2007 02:15, Mark Lord wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 April 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> s go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out cpu
> >>
> >>> bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd
> >>> simplicity of renicing, why keep fighting it? Again I reiterate that
> >>> most users of SD have not found the need to renice X anyway except if
> >>> they stick to old habits of make -j4 on uniprocessor and the like, and
> >>> I expect that those on CFS and Nicksched would also have similar
> >>> experiences.
> >>
> >> Just plain "make" (no -j2 or -j9999) is enough to kill interactivity
> >> on my 2GHz P-M single-core non-HT machine with SD.
> >>
> >> But with the very first posted version of CFS by Ingo,
> >> I can do "make -j2" no problem and still have a nicely interactive
> >> destop.
> >
> > Cool. Then there's clearly a bug with SD that manifests on your machine
> > as it should not have that effect at all (and doesn't on other people's
> > machines). I suggest trying the latest version which fixes some bugs.
>
> SD just doesn't do nearly as good as the stock scheduler, or CFS, here.
>
> I'm quite likely one of the few single-CPU/non-HT testers of this stuff.
> If it should ever get more widely used I think we'd hear a lot more
> complaints.

You are not really one of the few. A lot of my own work is done on a single 
core pentium M 1.7Ghz laptop. I am not endowed with truckloads of hardware 
like all the paid developers are. I recall extreme frustration myself when a 
developer a few years ago (around 2002) said he couldn't reproduce poor 
behaviour on his 4GB ram 4 x Xeon machine. Even today if I add up every 
machine I have in my house and work at my disposal it doesn't amount to that 
many cpus and that much ram.

-- 
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/