Re: Bad interactive behaviour in 2.5.65-66 (sched.c)

[Con Kolivas]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:05, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 20:21, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> > Theoretically, with interactivity enhancaments, you'll never need to
> > renice X. In fact, I'm running X with no renice and it feels pretty
> > snappy.
>
> I know.
>
> I was wondering, since we are working on an actual bug here, whether or
> not renicing X is leading to a starvation issue between X and whatever
> is starving.  I have seen it before.
>
> My system is responsive, too, and I do not renice X.  But it might
> help.  Or it might cause starvation issues.  We have a bug somewhere...

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.

Con