> Are you sure this should be called a bug? Basically X is an interactive
> process. If it now is "interactive for a priority -10 process" then it should
> be hogging the cpu time no? The priority -10 was a workaround for lack of
> interactivity estimation on the old scheduler.
Well, I do not necessarily think that renicing X is the problem. Just
an idea.
We do have a problem, though. Nearly indefinite starvation and all sort
of weird effects like bash not able to create a new process... its a
bug.
Renicing X, aside from some weird client-server starvation issues with
stuff like multimedia programs, should not cause any problem. It should
help, in fact. But, you are right, its not needed in the current
scheduler.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/