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

[Jens Axboe]

On Sat, Mar 29 2003, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 21:33, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 
> > 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.

I see the exact same behaviour here (systems appears fine, cpu intensive
app running, attempting to start anything _new_ stalls for ages), and I
definitely don't play X renice tricks.

It basically made 2.5 unusable here, waiting minutes for an ls to even
start displaying _anything_ is totally unacceptable.

-- 
Jens Axboe