>> I mean, besides making the kernel with as low latency as possible,
what
>> is bad about the responsiveness in the kernel? If there's any lag in
>> responsiveness that i see it's always something X related,
particularly
>> Xfree86.
>
>
>"low latency" != responsiveness
>
>
>Any latency which is below the point the user can notice
>is effectively zero, so whether the 10000 wakeups/minute
>that the user doesn't notice are 2ms or 5ms don't really
>matter.
absolugtely correct. My main grief wrt. responsiveness of desktop
systems is when the VM decides to grow the cache at the cost of pushing
parts of KDE into swap. As a result, "activating" windows that I
haven't touched for some time takes noticeable delays, which ruins the
interactiveness.
My best setup for this is to have lots of memory and disable swap (and
live with the consequences- eg. triggering the OOM killer).
Admittedly, things seem to be much better now than six month ago.
Martin
-- Martin Knoblauch Senior System Architect MSC.software GmbH Am Moosfeld 13 D-81829 Muenchen, Germanye-mail: martin.knoblauch@mscsoftware.com http://www.mscsoftware.com Phone/Fax: +49-89-431987-189 / -7189 Mobile: +49-174-3069245
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:15 EST