Re: [PATCH] sleep_decay for interactivity 2.5.72 - testers needed

[Con Kolivas]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:16, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 23:37, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > Yes Mike's patches are definitely better. My patches are designed
> > > > > for the 2.4-ck patchset which has other workarounds that augment
> > > > > this patch; however these workarounds are harder to stomach for
> > > > > mainstream kernels (read nasty hacks). I thought I'd offer the not
> > > > > so nasty sleep_decay patch in 2.5 form for perusal and comments
> > > > > since people are more willing to test 2.5 patches.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's nice to know.
> > > > I'm willing to test nearly any 2.5 patch. So, I'll gladly test any
> > > > other ideas or patches you (or others) might have.
> > >
> > > ANY?
> > >
> > > Ok well I guess I have to give away my secret then. This is the change
> > > that turns 2.5 into a desktop kernel. Note the very slight change to
> > > Ingo's addon ;-)
>
> OK, I've tested this patch but I still can easily make XMMS starve for
> briefs periods of time and can also make X to start behaving jerky. If I
> put the system under load (while true; do a=2; done) dragging a window
> fast enough for a long time makes the X server priority decreases to a
> point where the window moving is not smooth and very jerky. If I stop
> dragging the window, after a while, the X server prority is restablished
> and I can start all over again.

Yeah sure if you do it for long enough. Just change the best_sleep_decay from 
10 seconds to something like 60 if you plan to do that. Are you really going 
to madly drag a window around for 10 seconds? If so, change it to 60. That's 
how it works.

You didn't specify how you made XMMS starve easily... I don't know if I have 
an answer for that, but I need to know the question.

Con