On Tuesday 13 March 2007 00:48, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:23:06PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet > > > > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it. > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to find fault, I'm TESTING AND REPORTING. Was. > > > > > > Con, could you please take Mike's report of this regression seriously > > > and address it? Thanks, > > > > Sure. > > > > Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as > > I mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency > > scheduling. I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness what more would > > you have happen to your liking with this test case? > > Con, > > I think what we're discovering is that a "fair scheduler" is > not going to cut it. After all, running X and ripping CD's and MP3 > encoding them is not exactly an esoteric use case. And like it or > not, "nice" defaults to 4. > > I suspect Mike is right; the only way to deal with this > regression is some scheduler hints from the desktop subsystem (i.e., X > and friends). Yes, X is broken, it's horrible, yadda, yadda, yadda. > It's also what everyone is using, and it's a fact of life. Just like > we occasionally have had to work around ISA braindamage, and x86 > architecture braindamage, and ACPI braindamage all inflicted on us by > Intel. This is just life, and sometimes the clean, elegant solution > is not enough.
Instead of assuming it's bad, have you tried RSDL for yourself? Mike is using 2 lame threads for his test case. -- -ck - 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/
