Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
From: Matt Mackall
Date: Tue Apr 24 2007 - 12:41:25 EST
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:50:20AM -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> > Firstly, lots of clients in your list are remote. X usually isn't.
> They really aren't, unless you happen to work somewhere that can afford
> to dedicate a box to a db, which suddenly makes the scheduler a dull
> For example, I have a db and web server installed on my laptop, so
> that the few times that I have to do web app programming (while wearing
> a mustache and glasses so that I don't have to admit to it in polite
> company), I can be functional with just one computer.
Indeed. The vast majority of people doing "LAMP" web services are
doing it on a single machine. Or VM for that matter.
It seems that this is a lot like the priority inheritance problem. If
a nice -19 process blocks on the db running at nice 0, the db ought to
get a boost until it wakes the original process up. The same should
apply at the level of dynamic priorities at the same nice level.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
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/