From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272705AbTG1HJV (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:09:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272706AbTG1HJV (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:09:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:61091 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272705AbTG1HJR (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:09:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:24:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Con Kolivas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] sched-2.6.0-test1-G6, interactivity changes In-Reply-To: <200307280003.05185.kernel@kolivas.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Con Kolivas wrote: > 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? it's a hard question. The 25 msecs in -G6 is probably too low. Ingo