From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270445AbTGWQbW (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:31:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270452AbTGWQbW (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:31:22 -0400 Received: from 153.Red-213-4-13.pooles.rima-tde.net ([213.4.13.153]:7176 "EHLO small.felipe-alfaro.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270445AbTGWQbV (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:31:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] O8int for interactivity From: Felipe Alfaro Solana To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton , Mike Galbraith , Davide Libenzi , Mike Fedyk , Wiktor Wodecki , Eugene Teo , Danek Duvall , William Lee Irwin III In-Reply-To: <200307232155.27107.kernel@kolivas.org> References: <200307232155.27107.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1058978784.740.4.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 23 Jul 2003 18:46:24 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:55, Con Kolivas wrote: > Here is an addon to the interactivity work so far. As the ability to become > interactive was made much faster and easier in O6*, I was able to remove a lot > of extra code uneeded in this latest patch, and remove a lot of the noticable > unfairness in the code. This is closer to the original scheduler code after > all these patches than any of my previous patches. All of O8int is aimed > at fixing unfairness in my interactivity patches. Testing it right now on top of 2.6.0-test1-mm2 :-) Overall it feels better. I can't make XMMS skip at all. Under low load, X is very smooth, but X is still jerky/jumpy when the system is under heavy load (while true; do a=2; done) and I start moving windows all around my KDE desktop. Renicing the X server to -20 makes it very smooth under load (yeah, I know I shouldn't do this). I'm playing a bit with tunables to see if I can tune the scheduler a little bit for my system/workload. I've had good results reducing max timeslice to 100 (yeah, I know I shouldn't do this too). Will keep you informed :-)