Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:48, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Con Kolivas wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:32, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>
>>>>What you are doing is restricting some range so it can adapt more quickly
>>>>right? So you still have the problem in the cases where you are not
>>>>restricting this range.
>>>>
>>>Avoiding it becoming interactive in the first place is the answer.
>>>Anything more rapid and X dies dead as soon as you start moving a window
>>>for example, and new apps are seen as cpu hogs during startup and will
>>>take _forever_ to start under load. It's a tricky juggling act and I keep
>>>throwing more balls at it.
>>>
>>Well, what if you give less boost for sleeping?
>>
>
>Then it takes longer to become interactive. Take 2.6.0-test2 vanilla - audio
>apps can take up to a minute to be seen as fully interactive; whether this is
>a problem for your hardware or not is another matter but clearly they are
>interactive using <1% cpu time on the whole.
>
I think this is a big problem, a minute is much too long. I guess its
taking this long to build up because X needs a great deal of inertia
so that it can stay in a highly interactive state right?
If so then it seems the interactivity estimator does not have enough
information to work properly for X. In which case maybe X needs to be
reniced, or backboosted, or have _something_ done to help out.
-
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 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:28 EST