Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.31

[Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>]

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