Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response
From: Kyle Moffett
Date: Wed Dec 21 2005 - 08:36:12 EST
On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote:
...and if you stick in a faster server?...
There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local
filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other
as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O
should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"? Which
of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface
events? _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and
precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that
processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved
away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X-
server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even
during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity. Admittedly, that
may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the
interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember
which at the moment).
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you
looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
-- Poul Anderson
-
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/