From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270775AbTG0Nnk (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:43:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270776AbTG0Nnj (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:43:39 -0400 Received: from c210-49-248-224.thoms1.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.248.224]:19098 "EHLO mail.kolivas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270775AbTG0Nnj (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:43:39 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] sched-2.6.0-test1-G6, interactivity changes Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:03:04 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307280003.05185.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:40, Ingo Molnar wrote: > - further increase timeslice granularity For a while now I've been running a 1000Hz 2.4 O(1) kernel tree that uses timeslice granularity set to MIN_TIMESLICE which has stark smoothness improvements in X. I've avoided promoting this idea because of the theoretical drop in throughput this might cause. I've not been able to see any detriment in my basic testing of this small granularity, so I was curious to see what you throught was a reasonable lower limit? Con