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
> topic.
>
> 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/