On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 06:56 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 21:24 -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote: > > > Sorry, I haven't really been following this thread and now I'm confused. > > > > You're saying that it's somehow the scheduler's fault that X isn't > > running with a high enough priority? > > I'm saying that the current scheduler adjusts for interactive loads, > this new one doesn't. I'm seeing interactivity regressions, and they > are not fixed with nice unless nice is used to maximum effect. I'm > saying yes, I can lower my expectations, but no I don't want to. > > A four line summary is as short as I can make it. > > -Mike
Uh, no. Essentially, the current scheduler works around X's brokenness, in an often unpredictable manner. RSDL appears to be completely deterministic, which is a very strong virtue. The X people have plans for how to go about fixing this, but until then, there's no reason to hold up kernel development. -- Nicholas Miell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
