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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > i've not experienced a 'runaway X' personally, at most it would 
> > crash or lock up ;) The value is boot-time and sysctl configurable 
> > as well back to 0.
> 
> Mmmm.. I've had to kill off the odd X that was locking in 100% CPU 
> usage. In the past, this has happened maybe 1-3 times a year or so on 
> my notebook.
> 
> Now mind you, that usage could have been due to some client process, 
> but X is where the 100% showed up, so X is what I nuked.

well, i just simulated a runaway X at nice -19 on CFS (on a UP box), and 
while the box was a tad laggy, i was able to killall it without 
problems, within 2 seconds that also included a 'su'. So it's not an 
issue in CFS, it can be turned off, and because every distro has another 
way to renice Xorg, this is a convenience hack until Xorg standardizes 
it into some xorg.conf field. (It also makes sure that X isnt preempted 
by other userspace stuff while it does timing-sensitive operations like 
setting the video modes up or switching video modes, etc.)

	Ingo
-
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/