Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers

["Ray Lee" <madrabbit@gmail.com>]

On 4/19/07, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> The one fly in the ointment for
> linux remains X. I am still, to this moment, completely and utterly stunned
> at why everyone is trying to find increasingly complex unique ways to manage
> X when all it needs is more cpu[1].
[...and hence should be reniced]

The problem is that X is not unique. There's postgresql, memcached,
mysql, db2, a little embedded app I wrote... all of these perform work
on behalf of another process. It's just most *noticeable* with X, as
pretty much everyone is running that.

If we had some way for the scheduler to decide to donate part of a
client process's time slice to the server it just spoke to (with an
exponential dampening factor -- take 50% from the client, give 25% to
the server, toss the rest on the floor), that -- from my naive point
of view -- would be a step toward fixing the underlying issue. Or I
might be spouting crap, who knows.

The problem is real, though, and not limited to X.

While I have the floor, thank you, Con, for all your work.

Ray