Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Apr 24 2007 - 03:26:00 EST
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> yeah, i guess this has little to do with X. I think in your scenario
> it might have been smarter to either stop, or to renice the workloads
> that took away CPU power from others to _positive_ nice levels.
> Negative nice levels can indeed be dangerous.
btw., was X itself at nice 0 or nice -10 when the lockup happened?
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/