quoted text > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:23:06PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet
> > > > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not trying to find fault, I'm TESTING AND REPORTING. Was.
> > >
> > > Con, could you please take Mike's report of this regression seriously
> > > and address it? Thanks,
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as
> > I mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency
> > scheduling. I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness what more would
> > you have happen to your liking with this test case?
>
> Con,
>
> I think what we're discovering is that a "fair scheduler" is
> not going to cut it. After all, running X and ripping CD's and MP3
> encoding them is not exactly an esoteric use case. And like it or
> not, "nice" defaults to 4.
>
> I suspect Mike is right; the only way to deal with this
> regression is some scheduler hints from the desktop subsystem (i.e., X
> and friends). Yes, X is broken, it's horrible, yadda, yadda, yadda.
> It's also what everyone is using, and it's a fact of life. Just like
> we occasionally have had to work around ISA braindamage, and x86
> architecture braindamage, and ACPI braindamage all inflicted on us by
> Intel. This is just life, and sometimes the clean, elegant solution
> is not enough.
Instead of assuming it's bad, have you tried RSDL for yourself? Mike is using
2 lame threads for his test case.
--
-ck
-
