Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

Nick Piggin
2007-04-20T03:57:45Z

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 09:17:25AM -0400, 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.

Is this with or without X reniced?

> 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.

How well does cfs run if you have the granularity set to something
like 30ms (30000000)?