On Monday 23 April 2007, Niel Lambrechts wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> This message prompted me to do some checking in re context switches
>> myself, and I've come to the conclusion that there could be a bug in
>> vmstat itself.
>
>Perhaps. perhaps not. :)
>
>> Run singly the context switching is
On 4/23/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically this hack is bad on policy grounds because it is giving X an
"legislated, unfair monopoly" on the system. It's the equivalent of a
state-guaranteed monopoly in certain 'strategic industries'. It has some
advantages but it is very much
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 4 0 0 475752 13492 17632000 0 0 107 1477 85 15 0
> > 0 0
> > 4 0 0 475752 13492 17632000 0 0 122 1498 84 16 0
> > 0 0
>
> Did you even *look* at your own numbers? Maybe you looked at
>
Gene Heskett wrote:
> This message prompted me to do some checking in re context switches myself,
> and I've come to the conclusion that there could be a bug in vmstat itself.
Perhaps. perhaps not. :)
> Run singly the context switching is reasonable even for a -19 niceness of x,
> its only
On Monday 23 April 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> You are completely right in the case of traditional schedulers.
>
>And apparently I'm completely right with CFS too.
>
>> Using CFS-v5, with Xorg at nice 0, the context-switch rate is low:
>>
>> procs
On Monday 23 April 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> You are completely right in the case of traditional schedulers.
>
>And apparently I'm completely right with CFS too.
>
>> Using CFS-v5, with Xorg at nice 0, the context-switch rate is low:
>>
>> procs
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> You are completely right in the case of traditional schedulers.
And apparently I'm completely right with CFS too.
> Using CFS-v5, with Xorg at nice 0, the context-switch rate is low:
>
> procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
You are completely right in the case of traditional schedulers.
And apparently I'm completely right with CFS too.
Using CFS-v5, with Xorg at nice 0, the context-switch rate is low:
procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system--
On Monday 23 April 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
You are completely right in the case of traditional schedulers.
And apparently I'm completely right with CFS too.
Using CFS-v5, with Xorg at nice 0, the context-switch rate is low:
procs
On Monday 23 April 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
You are completely right in the case of traditional schedulers.
And apparently I'm completely right with CFS too.
Using CFS-v5, with Xorg at nice 0, the context-switch rate is low:
procs
Gene Heskett wrote:
This message prompted me to do some checking in re context switches myself,
and I've come to the conclusion that there could be a bug in vmstat itself.
Perhaps. perhaps not. :)
Run singly the context switching is reasonable even for a -19 niceness of x,
its only showing
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4 0 0 475752 13492 17632000 0 0 107 1477 85 15 0
0 0
4 0 0 475752 13492 17632000 0 0 122 1498 84 16 0
0 0
Did you even *look* at your own numbers? Maybe you looked at
interrpts. The
On 4/23/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically this hack is bad on policy grounds because it is giving X an
legislated, unfair monopoly on the system. It's the equivalent of a
state-guaranteed monopoly in certain 'strategic industries'. It has some
advantages but it is very much net
On Monday 23 April 2007, Niel Lambrechts wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
This message prompted me to do some checking in re context switches
myself, and I've come to the conclusion that there could be a bug in
vmstat itself.
Perhaps. perhaps not. :)
Run singly the context switching is reasonable
14 matches
Mail list logo
