From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271344AbTGQHtu (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:49:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271345AbTGQHtt (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:49:49 -0400 Received: from lorien.emufarm.org ([66.93.131.57]:42880 "EHLO lorien.emufarm.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271344AbTGQHts (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:49:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:04:36 -0700 From: Danek Duvall To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] O6.1int Message-ID: <20030717080436.GA16509@lorien.emufarm.org> Mail-Followup-To: Danek Duvall , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200307171213.02643.kernel@kolivas.org> <20030717045435.GA630@lorien.emufarm.org> <200307171712.20193.kernel@kolivas.org> <200307171213.02643.kernel@kolivas.org> <20030717045435.GA630@lorien.emufarm.org> <200307171635.25730.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307171712.20193.kernel@kolivas.org> <200307171635.25730.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 17, 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > Thanks for testing. How does vanilla 2.6.0-test1 compare? About the same, actually. There are a few differences, but I can't call one better or worse. > Can you watch top while all this is running, and see what dynamic > priority these applications are during this (the cc's, X, mozilla, > xterm and xmms), and when their behavious is less than ideal what the > priority is. In 2.6.0-test1, the cc1 processes hover around 30 (early on they're lower, but they ramp up quickly). Xmms stays fixed at 20 pretty much the entire time. X stays fixed at 15, though sometimes with heavy window moving it'll skyrocket to 16. :) Mozilla typically is at 20, but after lots of scrolling, it edges up slowly (and, I think, pretty linearly) to 30. Scrolling's bad by the time you get to 23 (with the compile going; if it's the only interesting thing happening, it's smooth all the way up). The jerkiness in mozilla scrolling repeatedly takes three to four seconds before it shows up. Let it sit for a few more seconds and it's good to go again, at least for another three to four seconds. The python process updating the portage database is in the 23-25 range. In 2.6.0-test1-mm1 with O6.1int, mozilla takes longer to get jerky (15-20 seconds), but once it does, it gets stuck there pretty bad. Over the 16 minutes it took to compile the kernel, I think I managed to get it unstuck twice (maybe I didn't know how to do it right -- I kept poking at it and maybe that was the wrong thing to do). When left alone, it would settle at 24, though it would drop to 20 or 21 when either raised to the top of the window stack or lowered to the bottom (I'm using fvwm, in case that matters here). It would come back up to 24 within a second or two. Any scrolling instantly brought it up to 27 and climbing. X, cc1, and xmms all had the same behavior as in vanilla (roughly the same amount of skippiness). The python process had a lower priority, spending most of its time in the 17-20 range. One other thing -- xmms skips seem to cause it to spit out ** WARNING **: snd_pcm_wait: Input/output error ** WARNING **: Buffer time reduced from 500 ms to 371 ms Not consistently one or the other or both, but at least one of those would show up each time. Hope this helps, Danek