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:	Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:21:03 -0400
From:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
To:	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
Cc:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, 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 Thursday 19 April 2007, 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 found the early SD's much friendlier here, but I also think that at that 
point I was comparing SD to stock 2.6.21-rc5 and 6, and to say that it sucked 
would be a slight understatement.

>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.

I'm in that row of seats too Mark.  Someday I have to build a new box, that's 
all there is to it...

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny.
		-- Frank Hubbard
-
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/