Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:03, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Con Kolivas wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>
>Well we're in agreement there. That's what all this work I've done is about.
>You'll see I've not been just tweaking numbers.
>
I know you haven't been just tweaking numbers ;) But in the case of the
patch that provides different behaviour depending on whether a sleep is
interruptible or not really smelt of papering over symptoms. Now it might
be that nothing better can be done without move invasive changes, but I
just thought I'd voice my concerns.
Oh, and remember that your desktop load is devoid of make -j big compiles,
so that is not a requisite for good interactivity.
-
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