From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272651AbTHELX6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:23:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272653AbTHELX6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:23:58 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-203-221-74-83.webone.com.au ([203.221.74.83]:44039 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272651AbTHELXe (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:23:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3F2F93A7.4070808@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:23:19 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030618 Debian/1.3.1-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Con Kolivas CC: linux kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Felipe Alfaro Solana Subject: Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity References: <200308050207.18096.kernel@kolivas.org> <200308052056.38861.kernel@kolivas.org> <3F2F8F0E.5060108@cyberone.com.au> <200308052112.12553.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: <200308052112.12553.kernel@kolivas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:03, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Con Kolivas wrote: >> >>>Then it takes longer to become interactive. Take 2.6.0-test2 vanilla - >>>audio apps can take up to a minute to be seen as fully interactive; >>>whether this is a problem for your hardware or not is another matter but >>>clearly they are interactive using <1% cpu time on the whole. >>> >>I think this is a big problem, a minute is much too long. I guess its >>taking this long to build up because X needs a great deal of inertia >>so that it can stay in a highly interactive state right? >> >>If so then it seems the interactivity estimator does not have enough >>information to work properly for X. In which case maybe X needs to be >>reniced, or backboosted, or have _something_ done to help out. >> > >Well we're in agreement there. That's what all this work I've done is about. >You'll see I've not been just tweaking numbers. > I know you haven't been just tweaking numbers ;) But in the case of the patch that provides different behaviour depending on whether a sleep is interruptible or not really smelt of papering over symptoms. Now it might be that nothing better can be done without move invasive changes, but I just thought I'd voice my concerns. Oh, and remember that your desktop load is devoid of make -j big compiles, so that is not a requisite for good interactivity.