Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 19 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:

[and I snipped a good overview]

>So yes go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out cpu
>bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd simplicity of
>renicing, why keep fighting it? Again I reiterate that most users of SD have
>not found the need to renice X anyway except if they stick to old habits of
>make -j4 on uniprocessor and the like, and I expect that those on CFS and
>Nicksched would also have similar experiences.

FWIW folks, I have never touched x's niceness, its running at the default -1 
for all of my so-called 'tests', and I have another set to be rebooted to 
right now.  And yes, my kernel makeit script uses -j4 by default, and has 
used -j8 just for effects, which weren't all that different from what I 
expected in 'abusing' a UP system that way.  The system DID remain usable, 
not snappy, but usable.

Having tried re-nicing X a while back, and having the rest of the system 
suffer in quite obvious ways for even 1 + or - from its default felt pretty 
bad from this users perspective.

It is my considered opinion (yeah I know, I'm just a leaf in the hurricane of 
this list) that if X has to be re-niced from the 1 point advantage its had 
for ages, then something is basicly wrong with the overall scheduling, cpu or 
i/o, or both in combination.  FWIW I'm using cfq for i/o.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Moore's Constant:
	Everybody sets out to do something, and everybody
	does something, but no one does what he sets out to do.
-
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/