User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

From:  Linus Torvalds <>
To:  Ed Tomlinson <>
Subject:  Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
Date:  Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:  Nick Piggin <>, Bill Huey <>, Mike Galbraith <>, Peter Williams <>,, ck list <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, William Lee Irwin III <>, Matt Mackall <>, Mark Lord <>, Andrew Morton <>, Arjan van de Ven <>
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

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?


(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds