[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070420035717.GA1028@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:57:17 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 09:17:25AM -0400, 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.
Is this with or without X reniced?
> 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.
How well does cfs run if you have the granularity set to something
like 30ms (30000000)?
-
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