* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:i think Mike's testcase was even simpler than that: two plain CPU hogs on nice +5 stole much more CPU time with Con's new interactivity code than they did with the current interactivity code. I'd agree with Mike that a phenomenon like that needs to be fixed. /less/ interactivity we can do easily in the current scheduler: just remove various bits here and there. The RSDL promise is that it gives us /more/ interactivity (with 'interactivity designed in', etc.), which in Mike's testcase does not seem to be the case. yeah. It's a hard case because X is not always a _clear_ interactive task - still the current interactivity code handles it quite well. but Mike's scenario wasnt even that complex. It wasnt even a hard case of X being starved by _other_ interactive tasks running on the same nice level. Mike's test-scenario was about two plain nice +5 CPU hogs starving nice +0 interactive tasks more than the current scheduler does, and this is really not an area where we want to see any regression. Con, could you work on this area a bit more? Ingo -
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Greg KH | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
