[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200704220054.58639.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:54:58 +0200
From: Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: 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
On Saturday 21 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> correct. Note that Willy reniced X back to 0 so it had no relevance on
> his test. Also note that i pointed this change out in the -v4 CFS
> announcement:
>
> || Changes since -v3:
> ||
> || - usability fix: automatic renicing of kernel threads such as
> || keventd, OOM tasks and tasks doing privileged hardware access
> || (such as Xorg).
>
> i've attached it below in a standalone form, feel free to put it into
> SD! :)
But X problems have nothing to do with "privileged hardware access".
X problems are related to priority inversions between server and client
processes, and "one server process - many client processes" case.
I think syncronous nature of Xlib (clients cannot fire-and-forget
their commands to X server, with Xlib each command waits for ACK
from server) also add some amount of pain.
--
vda
-
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