[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <462A25DD.2050702@rtr.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:55:25 -0400
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
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
Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 09:17:25AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> 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?
That was with no manual jiggling, everything the same as with stock kernels,
except that stock kernels don't kill interactivity here.
>> 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)?
Dunno, I've put this stuff aside for now until things settle down.
With four schedulers, and lots of patches / revisions / tuning-knobs,
there's just no way to keep up with it all here.
Cheers
-
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