Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

Con Kolivas
2007-04-20T00:19:07Z

On Friday 20 April 2007 02:15, 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.

You are not really one of the few. A lot of my own work is done on a single
core pentium M 1.7Ghz laptop. I am not endowed with truckloads of hardware
like all the paid developers are. I recall extreme frustration myself when a
developer a few years ago (around 2002) said he couldn't reproduce poor
behaviour on his 4GB ram 4 x Xeon machine. Even today if I add up every
machine I have in my house and work at my disposal it doesn't amount to that
many cpus and that much ram.

--
-ck