On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29 2003, Robert Love wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 21:33, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Are you sure this should be called a bug? Basically X is an interactive
> > > process. If it now is "interactive for a priority -10 process" then it
> > > should be hogging the cpu time no? The priority -10 was a workaround
> > > for lack of interactivity estimation on the old scheduler.
> >
> > Well, I do not necessarily think that renicing X is the problem. Just
> > an idea.
>
> I see the exact same behaviour here (systems appears fine, cpu intensive
> app running, attempting to start anything _new_ stalls for ages), and I
> definitely don't play X renice tricks.
>
> It basically made 2.5 unusable here, waiting minutes for an ls to even
> start displaying _anything_ is totally unacceptable.
I guess I should have trusted my own benchmark that was showing this was worse
for system responsiveness.
Con
-
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 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:35 EST