From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261264AbUKBPK4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:10:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261409AbUKBN5a (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:57:30 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:25770 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262089AbUKBNKA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:10:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:11:05 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] optional non-interactive mode for cpu scheduler Message-ID: <20041102131105.GA17535@elte.hu> References: <41871BA7.6070300@kolivas.org> <20041102125218.GH15290@elte.hu> <4187854C.6000803@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4187854C.6000803@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Con Kolivas wrote: > However the non-interactive mode addresses a number of different needs > that seem to have come up. Specifically: > I have had users report great success with such a mode on my own > scheduler in multiple X session setups where very choppy behaviour > occurs in mainline. since SCHED_CPUBOUND would be inherited across fork(), it should be rather easy to start an X session with all tasks as SCHED_CPUBOUND. but i think the above rather points in the direction of some genuine weakness in the interactivity code (i know, for which the fix is staircase ;) which would be nice to debug. > Many high performance computing people do not wish interactivity code > modifying their choice of latency/distribution - admittedly this is a > soft one. well, SCHED_CPUBOUND would solve their needs too, right? Ingo