Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

[Con Kolivas]

On Sunday 22 April 2007 08:54, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Saturday 21 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > correct. Note that Willy reniced X back to 0 so it had no relevance on
> > his test. Also note that i pointed this change out in the -v4 CFS
> >
> > announcement:
> > || Changes since -v3:
> > ||
> > ||  - usability fix: automatic renicing of kernel threads such as
> > ||    keventd, OOM tasks and tasks doing privileged hardware access
> > ||    (such as Xorg).
> >
> > i've attached it below in a standalone form, feel free to put it into
> > SD! :)
>
> But X problems have nothing to do with "privileged hardware access".
> X problems are related to priority inversions between server and client
> processes, and "one server process - many client processes" case.

It's not a privileged hardware access reason that this code is there. This is 
obfuscation/advertising to make it look like there is a valid reason for X 
getting negative nice levels somehow in the kernel to make interactive 
testing of CFS better by default.

-- 
-ck
-
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/