Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Nick Piggin wrote:

>
>
> Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
>>
>> OK. So you renice it ... then your two cpu jobs exit, and you kick off
>> xmms. Every time you waggle a window, X will steal the cpu back from
>> xmms, and it'll stall, surely? That's what seemed to happen before.
>> I don't see how you can fix anything by doing static priority 
>> alterations
>> (eg nice), because the workload changes.
>>
>> I'm probably missing something ... feel free to slap me ;-)
>>
>
> OK well just as a rough idea of how mine works: worst case for
> xmms is that X is at its highest dynamic priority (and reniced).
> xmms will be at its highest dynamic prio, or maybe one or two
> below that.
>
> X will get to run for maybe 30ms first, then xmms is allowed 6ms.
> That is still 15% CPU. And X soon comes down in priority if it
> continues to use a lot of CPU.
>

Backboost is not very different from renicing. It is just and implicit
and much less controlled way of allowing unfairness. And that is not
very different from the interactivity stuff either.