On Saturday 17 March 2007 07:07, jos poortvliet wrote: > Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar: > > so it is not at all clear to me that RSDL is indeed an improvement, if > > it does not have comparable auto-nice properties. > > Wasn't the point of RSDL to get rid of the auto-nice, because it caused > starvation, unpredictable behaviour and other problems? > > Anyway, I think it's a good thing we keep having a look at mike's problem, > but > it's not clear to me how far he got in solving it. Does the latest patch > solve the interactivity problem, providing X is niced -10 (or something)??? > > If it does, I think that's the solution - at least until the X ppl fix X > itself. Distributions can just go back renicing X (they did that before, > after all), and the biggest problem is fixed. Then all other users can have > the improvements RSDL offers, the developers can rejoice over the simpler and > cleaner design and code, and everybody is happy. > > If it doesn't solve the problem, more work is in order. I think ignoring a > clear regression to mainline, no matter how rare, isn't smart. It might > indicate an underlying problem, and even if it doesn't - you don't want ppl > complaining the new kernel isn't interactive anymore or something...
Ingo, The other point to make here is that you only need to nice X if you are heavily overloading the box. Here X is NOT niced and RSDL 0.30 is giving me better performance. Ed Tomlinson - 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/
