Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

Linus Torvalds
2007-04-20T01:30:30Z

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> > 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.

The thing is, it probably depends *heavily* on just how much work the X
server ends up doing. Fast video hardware? The X server doesn't need to
busy-wait much. Not a lot of eye-candy? The X server is likely fast enough
even with a slower card that it still gets sufficient CPU time and isn't
getting dinged by any balancing. DRI vs non-DRI? Which window manager
(maybe some of the user-visible lags come from there..) etc etc.

Anyway, I'd ask people to look a bit at the current *regressions* instead
of spending all their time on something that won't even be merged before
2.6.21 is released, and we thus have some mroe pressing issues. Please?

Linus