From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932296AbWDGCvK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:51:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932299AbWDGCvK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:51:10 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:47027 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932296AbWDGCvI (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:51:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4435D524.6020403@tmr.com> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:57:40 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050729 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Boldi CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-smp@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] sched.c : procfs tunables References: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.com> In-Reply-To: <200603311723.49049.a1426z@gawab.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 Al Boldi wrote: >Proper scheduling in a multi-tasking environment is critical to the success >of a desktop OS. Linux, being mainly a server OS, is currently tuned to >scheduling defaults that may be appropriate only for the server scenario. > > I'm not sure I would agree about distribution kernels, and kernel.org kernels certainly have the options to trade overhead for more response. >To enable Linux to play an effective role on the desktop, a more flexible >approach is necessary. An approach that would allow the end-User the >freedom to adjust the OS to the specific environment at hand. > >So instead of forcing a one-size fits all approach on the end-User, would not >exporting sched.c tunables to the procfs present a flexible approach to the >scheduling dilemma? > > Let me agree with Mike and Con, I understand just well enough to pretty much leave them alone. The swappiness is available, that's one of the things which wants tuning. But the old 2.2 kernels did run better on small machines, even a stripped 2.6 kernel is slower. >All comments that have a vested interest in enabling Linux on the desktop are >most welcome, even if they describe other/better/smarter approaches. > >Thanks! > >-- >Al > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-smp" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979