On Sat, Mar 29 2003, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 21:33, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
> > Are you sure this should be called a bug? Basically X is an interactive
> > process. If it now is "interactive for a priority -10 process" then it should
> > be hogging the cpu time no? The priority -10 was a workaround for lack of
> > interactivity estimation on the old scheduler.
>
> Well, I do not necessarily think that renicing X is the problem. Just
> an idea.
I see the exact same behaviour here (systems appears fine, cpu intensive
app running, attempting to start anything _new_ stalls for ages), and I
definitely don't play X renice tricks.
It basically made 2.5 unusable here, waiting minutes for an ls to even
start displaying _anything_ is totally unacceptable.
-- Jens Axboe- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:35 EST