From: Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staircase scheduler v7.4
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:11:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1088442705.1699.7.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40E00AEA.4050709@kolivas.org>
On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 22:11 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> The design of staircase would make renicing normal interactive things
> - -ve values bad for the latency of other nice 0 tasks s is not
> recommended for X or games etc. Initial scheduling latency is very
> dependent on nice value in staircase. If you set a cpu hog to nice -5 it
> will hurt audio at nice 0 and so on. Nicing latency unimportant things
> with +ve values is more useful with this design. If you run X and
> evolution at the same nice value they will get equal cpu share for
> example so moving windows means redrawing evolution and X moving get
> equal cpu. Nicing evolution +ve will make X smoother compared to
> evolution redrawing and so on...
OK, just a few thoughts...
1. Both -mm3 and -np2 suffer from delays when redrawing "damaged"
windows (windows which were covered and now are being exposed): while
moving heavily a window over the screen, "damaged" windows are not
redrawn. I would say this is a sign of starvation. However, this does
not happen with -ck3 that is able to redraw "damaged' windows even while
heavily moving a window all over the screen.
I can see this by looking at some icons that are lying on my desktop.
With -mm3 and -np2, they are hardly redrawn while heavily moving a
window all around. With -ck3, I can see the icons and their respective
labels all the time.
2. Both -mm3 and -np2 show a very smooth behavior when moving windows
all around the screen. However, -ck3 is somewhat a little bit jerky. I
think this is a consequence of point number 1.
3. Both -mm3 and -ck3 are inmune to CPU hogs when mantaining
interactivity: running "while true; do a=2; done" doesn't seem to affect
the interactive behavior of them. I check this by running this CPU hog
and hovering my mouse over KXDocker, which is a nice applet for KDE
similar to the Mac OS X docker. KXDocker is another CPU hog by itself,
but plays nicely with the "while true" loop. However, -np2 seems to
suffer a little bit from starvation, as KXDocker animations don't feel
smooth.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-28 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-25 16:40 [PATCH] Staircase scheduler v7.4 Michael Buesch
2004-06-25 16:46 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 18:44 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-25 19:05 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-06-25 19:48 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-26 1:11 ` kernel
2004-06-26 16:33 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-26 17:29 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-27 9:14 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 19:17 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-27 19:28 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-27 21:55 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-28 0:15 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-28 8:40 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-28 8:49 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-28 11:53 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-06-28 12:11 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-28 15:03 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-06-28 15:19 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-28 15:39 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-06-28 17:11 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana [this message]
2004-06-29 4:36 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-28 23:21 ` Peter Williams
2004-06-29 4:44 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-29 6:01 ` Ed Sweetman
2004-06-29 6:55 ` Nick Piggin
2004-06-26 2:05 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 10:24 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 10:27 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 23:50 ` Peter Williams
2004-06-27 12:00 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 12:04 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 12:54 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-27 13:15 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 16:46 ` Michael Buesch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-06-25 14:38 Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 18:32 ` Matthias Urlichs
2004-06-26 1:28 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-25 22:20 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-06-26 1:05 ` kernel
2004-06-26 20:04 ` Wes Janzen
2004-06-26 20:11 ` Michael Buesch
2004-06-26 21:14 ` Wes Janzen
2004-06-26 21:38 ` Prakash K. Cheemplavam
2004-06-27 9:16 ` Con Kolivas
2004-06-27 11:40 ` Grzegorz Kulewski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1088442705.1699.7.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com \
--to=felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=willy@w.ods.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.