From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:06:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:06:47 -0500 Received: from cs180132.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.180.132]:31634 "EHLO devil.pp.htv.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 06:06:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Bad interactive behaviour in 2.5.65-66 (sched.c) From: Mika Liljeberg To: Robert Love Cc: Peter Lundkvist , akpm@digeo.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1048980204.13757.17.camel@localhost> References: <3E8610EA.8080309@telia.com> <1048980204.13757.17.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1049023130.4713.6.camel@devil> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 30 Mar 2003 14:18:51 +0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 01:23, Robert Love wrote: > I wonder if the reniced X is a factor? I had some interactivity problems with X reniced to -10. It seemed to me that X was pre-empting the clients and flushing changes to screen too quickly. It was probably losing out on some screen update optimizations. I took out the renice and now the system behaves much better. MikaL