On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 08:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Saturday 17 March 2007 02:34, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:40 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Here are full patches for rsdl 0.31 for various base kernels. A full > > > > announce with a fresh -mm series will follow... > > > > > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.20.3-rsdl-0.31.patch > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-sched-rsdl-0. > > > >31.patch > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-rc3-mm2-rsdl-0.31 > > > >.patch > > > > > > It still has trouble with the x/gforce vs two niced encoders scenario. > > > The previously reported choppiness is still present. > > > > > > I suspect that x/gforce landing in the expired array is the trouble, and > > > that this will never be smooth without some kind of exemption. I added > > > some targeted unfairness to .30, and it didn't help much at all. > > > > > > Priorities going all the way to 1 were a surprise. > > > > It wasn't going to change that case without renicing X. > > Con. You are trying to wedge a fair scheduler into an environment where > totally fair simply can not possibly function. > > If this is your final answer to the problem space, I am done testing, > and as far as _I_ am concerned, your scheduler is an utter failure. >
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? -- 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/