* Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 07:11 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I don't agree with starting to renice X to get something usable
>
> [...] Why not compensate for X design by prioritizing it a bit ?
there were multiple attempts with renicing X under the vanilla
scheduler, and they were utter failures most of the time. _More_ people
complained about interactivity issues _after_ X has been reniced to -5
(or -10) than people complained about "nice 0" interactivity issues to
begin with.
The vanilla scheduler's auto-nice feature rewards _behavior_, so it gets
X right most of the time. The fundamental issue is that sometimes X is
very interactive - we boost it then, there's lots of scheduling but nice
low latencies. Sometimes it's a hog - we penalize it then and things
start to batch up more and we get out of the overload situation faster.
That's the case even if all you care about is desktop performance.
no doubt it's hard to get the auto-nice thing right, but one thing is
clear: currently RSDL causes problems in areas that worked well in the
vanilla scheduler for a long time, so RSDL needs to improve. RSDL should
not lure itself into the false promise of 'just renice X statically'. It
wont work. (You might want to rewrite X's request scheduling - but if so
then i'd like to see that being done _first_, because i just dont trust
such 10-mile-distance problem analysis.)
Ingo
-
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/
