From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030829AbXDTATH (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:19:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031141AbXDTATH (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:19:07 -0400 Received: from mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.182]:38471 "EHLO mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030829AbXDTATF (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:19:05 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Mark Lord Subject: Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:17:52 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds , Matt Mackall , William Lee Irwin III , Peter Williams , Mike Galbraith , ck list , Bill Huey , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner References: <20070417062621.GL2986@holomorphy.com> <200704200110.47974.kernel@kolivas.org> <46279585.4010409@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <46279585.4010409@rtr.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704201017.53047.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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