|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Ed Tomlinson <edt-AT-aei.ca>|
|| ||Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers|
|| ||Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:27:41 -0700 (PDT)|
|| ||Nick Piggin <npiggin-AT-suse.de>,
Bill Huey <billh-AT-gnuppy.monkey.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault-AT-gmx.de>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058-AT-bigpond.net.au>,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, ck list <ck-AT-vds.kolivas.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli-AT-holomorphy.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm-AT-selenic.com>, Mark Lord <lkml-AT-rtr.ca>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org>|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > 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.
> amd64 UP here. SD with several makes running works just fine.
The thing is, it probably depends *heavily* on just how much work the X
server ends up doing. Fast video hardware? The X server doesn't need to
busy-wait much. Not a lot of eye-candy? The X server is likely fast enough
even with a slower card that it still gets sufficient CPU time and isn't
getting dinged by any balancing. DRI vs non-DRI? Which window manager
(maybe some of the user-visible lags come from there..) etc etc.
Anyway, I'd ask people to look a bit at the current *regressions* instead
of spending all their time on something that won't even be merged before
2.6.21 is released, and we thus have some mroe pressing issues. Please?
to post comments)