From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262038AbTHYRhx (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:37:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262043AbTHYRhx (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:37:53 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-243-188.webone.com.au ([210.9.243.188]:8964 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262038AbTHYRhv (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:37:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3F4A496B.1030205@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 03:37:47 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030714 Debian/1.4-2 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel Subject: Re: [RFC] renicing X References: <3F4A3293.8070004@cyberone.com.au> <1061831528.2967.7.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> In-Reply-To: <1061831528.2967.7.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: >On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 18:00, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>My scheduler patch really benefits a lot from renicing X. I >>think its because it nices more nicely. Any reasons why this >>might be a bad idea? >> Hi Felipe, Sorry I can't mail you directly. Some spam filter doesn't like me. > >Well, not for me... Although renicing X with Con patches makes X feel >horrible, with your patches is not as horrible. However, I feel X much >smoother with X reniced at +0. Renicing X at -20, for example, may >reduce mouse cursor jumpiness under load, but makes X feel a little >jerky in general (window movement is not as smooth as with X niced at >+0). This is, however, based on subjective testing, not actual numbers. > Hmm interesting. Might be a bug... > >But for interactivity, most of the time it's the subjective feeling of >the user about the system what matters, not numbers. > Yep > >And now we're talking about sched-policy-7a: under heavy load, spawning >new processes still takes twice the time it takes when the system is >under no load. For example, spawning a new Konsole session (not a new >Konsole process, but a new session tab inside Konsole) takes approx. 1 >second on my P3-700Mhz. However, with sched-policy-7a and under heavy >load (the mad while true; do a=2; done loop), it takes more than 2 >seconds. > OK thanks. I'll try to work on this. > >In general, sched-policy-7a feels extremely smooth and responsive in >general but, for me, Con patches offer the smoothest X experience I have >ever felt until date. Anyways, I will keep testing your patches and I >greatly encourage you to keep improving them. It's always good to have >diversity :-) > Well thats good. Thanks very much.