On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 06:56 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 21:24 -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I haven't really been following this thread and now I'm confused.
> > 
> > You're saying that it's somehow the scheduler's fault that X isn't
> > running with a high enough priority?
> 
> I'm saying that the current scheduler adjusts for interactive loads,
> this new one doesn't.  I'm seeing interactivity regressions, and they
> are not fixed with nice unless nice is used to maximum effect.  I'm
> saying yes, I can lower my expectations, but no I don't want to.
> 
> A four line summary is as short as I can make it.
> 
> 	-Mike

Uh, no. Essentially, the current scheduler works around X's brokenness,
in an often unpredictable manner.

RSDL appears to be completely deterministic, which is a very strong
virtue.

The X people have plans for how to go about fixing this, but until then,
there's no reason to hold up kernel development.

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/