From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932760AbVHTAcU (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:32:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932765AbVHTAcU (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:32:20 -0400 Received: from mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.199]:40841 "EHLO mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932760AbVHTAcT (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:32:19 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Lee Revell Subject: Re: Schedulers benchmark - Was: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.4 for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13-rc6 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:31:59 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Peter Williams , Michal Piotrowski , LKML References: <43001E18.8020707@bigpond.net.au> <200508191436.42881.kernel@kolivas.org> <1124482411.25424.49.camel@mindpipe> In-Reply-To: <1124482411.25424.49.camel@mindpipe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508201031.59981.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:13, Lee Revell wrote: > On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 14:36 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:41 pm, Peter Williams wrote: > > > Maybe we could use interbench to find a nice value for X that doesn't > > > destroy Audio and Video? The results that I just posted for > > > spa_no_frills with X reniced to -10 suggest that the other schedulers > > > could cope with something closer to zero. > > > > I don't see the point. X works fine as is without renicing not > > withstanding these extreme loads in interbench. Furthermore, reworking of > > xorg code to not spin the cpu unnecessarily when the gpu is busy is > > underway and tuning the cpu scheduler unfairly for an X server that will > > no longer behave so badly is inappropriate. > > See, that's where we disagree, I certainly don't believe X "works fine". > Compared to MacOS and (especially) Windows the Linux desktop is WAY > sluggish. > > For example when I cycle through windows with alt-tab in X, it can take > 5-10 seconds for each to render. I can see the application's widgets > being drawn one at a time, then finally the border. Repeated > alt-tabbing between the same two windows seems to cause a CPU intensive > redraw of the entire window. It's as if X just discards the rendered > contents of a window as soon as it's obscured. > > On Windows this works as expected - cycling through windows whose > contents have already been rendered is *instantaneous*. > > I agree that tweaking the scheduler is probably pointless, as long as X > is burning gazillions of CPU cycles redrawing things that don't need to > be redrawn. > > Then again even the OSX scheduler has hooks for the GUI. Presumably > they concluded that the desktop responsiveness problem could not be > adequately solved within the framework of a general purpose UNIX > scheduler. It's an X problem and it's being fixed. Get over it, we're not tuning the scheduler for a broken app. Con