Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

Gene Heskett
2007-04-19T18:21:10Z

On Thursday 19 April 2007, 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 found the early SD's much friendlier here, but I also think that at that
point I was comparing SD to stock 2.6.21-rc5 and 6, and to say that it sucked
would be a slight understatement.

>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.

I'm in that row of seats too Mark. Someday I have to build a new box, that's
all there is to it...

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny.
-- Frank Hubbard