[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <462B60A1.1020407@rtr.ca>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:18:25 -0400
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> wrote:
>
>>> i've attached it below in a standalone form, feel free to put it
>>> into SD! :)
>> Assume X went crazy (lacking any statistics, I make the unproven
>> statement that this happens more often than kthreads going berserk),
>> then having it niced with minus something is not too nice.
>
> i've not experienced a 'runaway X' personally, at most it would crash or
> lock up ;) The value is boot-time and sysctl configurable as well back
> to 0.
>
Mmmm.. I've had to kill off the odd X that was locking in 100% CPU usage.
In the past, this has happened maybe 1-3 times a year or so on my notebook.
Now mind you, that usage could have been due to some client process,
but X is where the 100% showed up, so X is what I nuked.
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