Re: [PATCH] Nick's scheduler policy v12

[Martin J. Bligh]

> 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?

Debian renices X by default to -10 ... I fixed all my desktop interactivity
problems around 2.5.63 timeframe by just turning that off. That was way 
before Con's patches.

There may be some more details around this, and I'd love to hear them,
but I fundmantally believe that explitit fiddling with particular
processes because we believe they're somehow magic is wrong (and so
does Linus, from previous discussions).

M.

-
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/