Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

Ed Tomlinson
2007-04-20T01:20:24Z

On Thursday 19 April 2007 12:15, Mark Lord wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 April 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> s go ahead and think up great ideas for other ways of metering out cpu
> >>
> >>> bandwidth for different purposes, but for X, given the absurd simplicity
> >>> of renicing, why keep fighting it? Again I reiterate that most users of
> >>> SD have not found the need to renice X anyway except if they stick to old
> >>> habits of make -j4 on uniprocessor and the like, and I expect that those
> >>> on CFS and Nicksched would also have similar experiences.
> >> Just plain "make" (no -j2 or -j9999) is enough to kill interactivity
> >> on my 2GHz P-M single-core non-HT machine with SD.
> >>
> >> But with the very first posted version of CFS by Ingo,
> >> I can do "make -j2" no problem and still have a nicely interactive destop.
> >
> > Cool. Then there's clearly a bug with SD that manifests on your machine as it
> > should not have that effect at all (and doesn't on other people's machines).
> > I suggest trying the latest version which fixes some bugs.
>
> SD just doesn't do nearly as good as the stock scheduler, or CFS, here.
>
> I'm quite likely one of the few single-CPU/non-HT testers of this stuff.
> If it should ever get more widely used I think we'd hear a lot more complaints.

amd64 UP here. SD with several makes running works just fine.

Ed Tomlinson