linux-kernel - Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.31

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]

Message-ID: <20070317070906.1b84318c@chirp>
Date:	Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:09:06 -0700
From:	Mark Glines <mark-ck@...nes.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>,
	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ck@....kolivas.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.31

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:46:27 +0100
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> 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 while a hog is running will also need
> to be negative nice, no?

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 %MEM    TIME+  P COMMAND
> 6599 root      26   0  174m  30m 8028 R   51  3.1   7:08.70 0 Xorg


I'm hoping that actually quantifying this issue will result in a better
understanding of the issue...

Thanks,

Mark
-
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/