Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:09:33 +0200
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:26:03PM -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
On 4/19/07, Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The one fly in the ointment for[...and hence should be reniced]
linux remains X. I am still, to this moment, completely and utterly stunned
at why everyone is trying to find increasingly complex unique ways to
manage
X when all it needs is more cpu[1].
The problem is that X is not unique. There's postgresql, memcached,
mysql, db2, a little embedded app I wrote... all of these perform work
on behalf of another process. It's just most *noticeable* with X, as
pretty much everyone is running that.
But for most of those apps, we don't actually care if they do fairly
degrade in performance as other loads on the system ramp up. However
the user prefers X to be given priority in these situations. Whether
that is the design of X, x clients, or the human condition really
doesn't matter two hoots to the scheduler.
If we had some way for the scheduler to decide to donate part of a
client process's time slice to the server it just spoke to (with an
exponential dampening factor -- take 50% from the client, give 25% to
the server, toss the rest on the floor), that -- from my naive point
of view -- would be a step toward fixing the underlying issue. Or I
might be spouting crap, who knows.
Firstly, lots of clients in your list are remote. X usually isn't.
However for X, a syscall or something to donate time might not be
such a bad idea... but given a couple of X clients and a server
against a parallel make, this is probably just going to make the
clients slow down as well without giving enough priority to the
server.
X isn't special so much because it does work on behalf of others
(as you said, lots of things do that). It is special simply because
we _want_ rendering to have priority of the CPU (if you shifed CPU
intensive rendering to the clients, you'd most likely want to give
them priority to); nice, right?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Ray Lee
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- References:
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: William Lee Irwin III
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Con Kolivas
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Ray Lee
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm take4 2/6] support multiple logging
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm take4 4/6] using symlink for the net_device
- Previous by thread: Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- Next by thread: Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
