[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200703122134.13554.kernel@kolivas.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:34:13 +1100
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To: Xavier Bestel <xavier.bestel@...e.fr>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2
On Monday 12 March 2007 20:38, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 20:22 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 12 March 2007 19:55, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Hmm. So... anything that's client/server is going to suffer horribly
> > > unless niced tasks are niced all the way down to 19?
> >
> > Fortunately most client server models dont usually have mutually
> > exclusive cpu use like this X case. There are many things about X that
> > are still a little (/me tries to think of a relatively neutral term)...
> > wanting. :(
>
> I'd say the problem is less with X than with Xlib, which is heavily
> round-trip-based. Fortunately XCB (its successor) seeks to be more
> asynchronous.
Yes I recall a talk by Keith Packard on Xorg development and how a heck of a
lot of time spent spinning by X (?Xlib) for no damn good reason was the
number one thing that made X suck and basically it was silly to try and fix
that at the cpu scheduler level since it needed to be corrected in X, and was
being actively addressed. So we should stop trying to write cpu schedulers
for X.
> Xav
--
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists