Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12

[Mike Fedyk]

On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:54:04AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > Backboost is gone so X really should be at -10 or even higher.
> 
> Wasn't that causing half the problems originally? Boosting X seemed
> to starve xmms et al. Or do the interactivity changes fix xmms
> somehow, but not X itself? Explicitly fiddling with task's priorities
> seems flawed to me.

Wasn't it the larger timeslices with lower nice values in stock and Con's
patches that made X with nice -10 a bad idea?
-
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/