Re: [PATCH] Staircase scheduler v7.4

Con Kolivas
2004-06-28T12:11:54Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
| On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 18:49 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
|
|>Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
|>
|>
|>>I have tested 2.6.7-bk10 plus from_2.6.7_to_staircase_7.7 patch and,
|>>while it's definitively better than previous versions, it still feels a
|>>little jerky when moving windows in X11 wrt to -mm3. Renicing makes it a
|>>little bit smoother, but not as much as -mm3 without renicing.
|>>
|>
|>You know, if renicing X makes it smoother, then that is a good thing
|>IMO. X needs large amounts of CPU and low latency in order to get
|>good interactivity, which is something the scheduler shouldn't give
|>to a process unless it is told to.
|
|
| But the problem here is that -ck3 with X reniced to -10 is not as smooth
| as -mm3 with no renicing. That's what worries me.

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...

Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFA4ArqZUg7+tp6mRURAn2BAJ4hkK871JXO/R3AvwR0CzKoLg6f6wCeNBP/
Y1aOfCWLR5QtVZvq8wdpToI=
=xit3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----