Cc: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...>, Mike Galbraith <efault@...>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...>, <ck@...>, Al Boldi <a1426z@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
why isn't niceing X to -10 an acceptable option?
if you overload the box enough things slow down, what scheduler avoids that?
where RSDL 'regresses' is with multiple CPU hog running at once (more then the
number of real CPU's you have available) at the same priority, with one of them
being the X server process.
the initial report was that with X + 2 cpu hogs on 1.5 cpu's there's more of a
slowdown (even with a nice difference of 5 between X and the other processes)
the latest report is that with X and 11 cpu hogs and a nice difference of 10
things slow down (I don't remember the number of cpu's from this report)
how much of an overload should the scheduler adjust for? a load of 3xcpu's?
10x cpu's? what would be deemed acceptable?
if the key factor in a scheduler is to be able to run multiple CPU hogs at the
same time as the X process, why not just check the name of the process running,
and if it's X give it a nice boost?
while that would be easy to abuse, it would at least be predictable.
if the nice levels don't have enough of an effect, how much of an effect should
a given nice level have? (con has asked this several times, I haven't seen an
answer from anyone)
David Lang
-
