Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12

[Mike Fedyk]

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 01:19:24PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:54:04AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> > Backboost is gone so X really should be at -10 or even higher.
> >> 
> >> Wasn't that causing half the problems originally? Boosting X seemed
> >> to starve xmms et al. Or do the interactivity changes fix xmms
> >> somehow, but not X itself? Explicitly fiddling with task's priorities
> >> seems flawed to me.
> > 
> > Wasn't it the larger timeslices with lower nice values in stock and Con's
> > patches that made X with nice -10 a bad idea?
> 
> Debian renices X by default to -10 ... I fixed all my desktop interactivity
> problems around 2.5.63 timeframe by just turning that off. That was way 
> before Con's patches.

Exactly.  Because the larger time slices for lower nice values came from
O(1), not Con.

> 
> There may be some more details around this, and I'd love to hear them,
> but I fundmantally believe that explitit fiddling with particular
> processes because we believe they're somehow magic is wrong (and so
> does Linus, from previous discussions).
> 

Linus added a patch to 2.5.65 or so that was supposed to allow nice 0 on X
without any detrament. 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/