On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:47 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> >>>
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:47 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > >> Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
> > > >
> > > > What happens when you renice X ?
> > >
> > > Dunno -- not necessary with the stock scheduler.
> >
> > Could you try something like renice
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Bill Davidsen:
> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> >>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> >>> (communication with
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Bill Davidsen:
Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app
Op Tuesday 20 March 2007, schreef Linus Torvalds:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Stock scheduler wins easily, no contest.
What happens when you renice X ?
Dunno -- not necessary with the stock scheduler.
Could you try something like renice -10 $(pidof Xorg) ?
Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why
Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Radoslaw Szkodzinski:
> On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
> > X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
> > ...that I've been getting.
>
> Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
...that I've been getting.
Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not computer programs.
Still, it's not a smart decision on KDE's part.
It
On 3/18/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
not really, only X sucks. KDE works atleast as good with rsdl as
vanilla. i dont know how originally said kde works worse, wasnt it just
someone that thought?
Couldn't agree more, been using RSDL+KDE for a week now, and as far as
I'm
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
>
> > I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> > (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
> > That's why splitting IO from
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 13:50 +0530, jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
> maybe if it is possible to classify program behaviors that cause RSDL to
> do bad (relatively) or the mainline scheduler to jitter, we could try
> modifying the existing heuristics to get a better default scheduler.
>
> of course, it
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
>
>> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
>> (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
>> That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
>
> > I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> > (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
> > That's why splitting IO from
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
> (communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
> That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should at
> least be ran in an
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 07:47 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > So neither does a good job with this load.
> that sorely depends on what you mean by good job.
>
> It seems like what you call a good job is preserving the speed of the
> gui(X +
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 07:47 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
So neither does a good job with this load.
that sorely depends on what you mean by good job.
It seems like what you call a good job is preserving the speed of the
gui(X + apps
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should at
least be ran in an another
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why splitting IO from an app
Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why splitting IO from an app isn't exactly smart. It should at
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 13:50 +0530, jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
maybe if it is possible to classify program behaviors that cause RSDL to
do bad (relatively) or the mainline scheduler to jitter, we could try
modifying the existing heuristics to get a better default scheduler.
of course, it
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 08:22 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
I'd recon KDE regresses because of kioslaves waiting on a pipe
(communication with the app they're doing IO for) and then expiring.
That's why splitting IO from an app
On 3/18/07, Kasper Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
not really, only X sucks. KDE works atleast as good with rsdl as
vanilla. i dont know how originally said kde works worse, wasnt it just
someone that thought?
Couldn't agree more, been using RSDL+KDE for a week now, and as far as
I'm
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
...that I've been getting.
Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not computer programs.
Still, it's not a smart decision on KDE's part.
It
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Radoslaw Szkodzinski:
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm. Sounds rather a lot like the...
X sucks, fix X and RSDL will rock your world. RSDL is perfect.
...that I've been getting.
Blah. Nothing's perfect. Especially not computer
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 19:23 +0100, Kacper Wysocki wrote:
> And for Mark and others who are as confused as I was, this is the
> thread that Mike meant to reference:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/503455/focus=6614
Nope, with all the back and forth (and noise), I lost track of which
On 3/17/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 13:03 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 17 March 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [...]
> >Xorg is using 50% cpu because I'm asking it to.
>
> What advantage is that giving you?
It's a test scenario. Read the
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 07:54 -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:33:41 +0100
> Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P
> > > > COMMAND 6599 root 26 0 174m 30m 8028 R 51 3.1
> > > > 7:08.70 0 Xorg
> >
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:33:41 +0100
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P
> > > COMMAND 6599 root 26 0 174m 30m 8028 R 51 3.1
> > > 7:08.70 0 Xorg
> >
>
> This is a snippet from a hacked up by me version of
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:46:27 +0100
Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:44 -0800, David Lang wrote:
>
> > why isn't niceing X to -10 an acceptable option?
>
> Xorg's priority is only part of the problem. Every client that needs
> a substantial quantity of cpu
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 07:09 -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
> I don't suppose you can be a bit more specific, and define how much CPU
> constitutes a "substantial quantity"? It looks to me like X already got
> about half of a CPU.
>
> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P
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,
On 3/17/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 20:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> The most frustrating part of a discussion of this nature on lkml is that
> earlier information in a thread seems to be long forgotten after a few days
> and all that is left is the one
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
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
On 3/17/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 20:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
The most frustrating part of a discussion of this nature on lkml is that
earlier information in a thread seems to be long forgotten after a few days
and all that is left is the one
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
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 07:09 -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
I don't suppose you can be a bit more specific, and define how much CPU
constitutes a substantial quantity? It looks to me like X already got
about half of a CPU.
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P COMMAND
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:46:27 +0100
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:44 -0800, David Lang wrote:
why isn't niceing X to -10 an acceptable option?
Xorg's priority is only part of the problem. Every client that needs
a substantial quantity of cpu while a hog
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:33:41 +0100
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P
COMMAND 6599 root 26 0 174m 30m 8028 R 51 3.1
7:08.70 0 Xorg
This is a snippet from a hacked up by me version of RSDL.30, not
stock.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 07:54 -0700, Mark Glines wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:33:41 +0100
Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ P
COMMAND 6599 root 26 0 174m 30m 8028 R 51 3.1
7:08.70 0 Xorg
This is a
On 3/17/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 13:03 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 17 March 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[...]
Xorg is using 50% cpu because I'm asking it to.
What advantage is that giving you?
It's a test scenario. Read the thread
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 19:23 +0100, Kacper Wysocki wrote:
And for Mark and others who are as confused as I was, this is the
thread that Mike meant to reference:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/503455/focus=6614
Nope, with all the back and forth (and noise), I lost track of which
Freitag, 16. März 2007 wrote Mike Galbraith:
> 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
>
Freitag, 16. März 2007 wrote Mike Galbraith:
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
