Re: [CFT][PATCH] new scheduler policy

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >about X doesn't sit well with me. I think the best you could hope 
> >for there
> >_might_ be a config option _if_ you could show some significant
> >improvements not attainable by modifying either X or the kernel in a 
> >more
> >generic manner.
> >
> Yes, this is exactly what Keith Packard did in this paper:  
> http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/usenix2000/smart.html .  The X 
> scheduler is certainly "smarter" by giving a higher priority to more 
> interactive X clients. But I think guessing the importance of a 
> client by the X server itself is flawed because the X server doesn't 
> have a whole picture of the system. For example, it doesn't know 
> anything about the "nice" value of a process.  I think the kernel is 
> in the best position to decide which process is more important. 
> That's why I proposed kernel based approach.

Tasks can easily report their interactivity needs/nice value.
X are already depend on clients not trying to screw each other,
so thats okay.
-- 
				Pavel
Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...

-
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/