Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
quoted text
> so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement, if
> it does not have comparable auto-nice properties.

Wasn't the point of RSDL to get rid of the auto-nice, because it caused=20
starvation, unpredictable behaviour and other problems?

Anyway, I think it's a good thing we keep having a look at mike's problem, =
but=20
it's not clear to me how far he got in solving it. Does the latest patch=20
solve the interactivity problem, providing X is niced -10 (or something)???=
=20

If it does, I think that's the solution - at least until the X ppl fix X=20
itself. Distributions can just go back renicing X (they did that before,=20
after all), and the biggest problem is fixed. Then all other users can have=
=20
the improvements RSDL offers, the developers can rejoice over the simpler a=
nd=20
cleaner design and code, and everybody is happy.

If it doesn't solve the problem, more work is in order. I think ignoring a=
=20
clear regression to mainline, no matter how rare, isn't smart. It might=20
indicate an underlying problem, and even if it doesn't - you don't want ppl=
=20
complaining the new kernel isn't interactive anymore or something...


/Jos


=2D-=20
Disclaimer:

Alles wat ik doe denk en zeg is gebaseerd op het wereldbeeld wat ik nu heb.=
=20
Ik ben niet verantwoordelijk voor wijzigingen van de wereld, of het beeld w=
at=20
ik daarvan heb, noch voor de daaruit voortvloeiende gedragingen van mezelf.=
=20
Alles wat ik zeg is aardig bedoeld, tenzij expliciet vermeld.