[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070424072520.GA28387@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:25:20 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@....jussieu.fr>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr
Subject: Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> yeah, i guess this has little to do with X. I think in your scenario
> it might have been smarter to either stop, or to renice the workloads
> that took away CPU power from others to _positive_ nice levels.
> Negative nice levels can indeed be dangerous.
btw., was X itself at nice 0 or nice -10 when the lockup happened?
Ingo
-
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