Re: O(1) scheduler & interactivity improvements

Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:12:20 -0400 (EDT)


On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Helge Hafting wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:18:29PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:

> > I don't consider compiling the kernel an interactive process as it's
> > done almost automatically without any user intervention. XMMS is not a
> > complete interactive application as it spends most of the time decoding
> > and playing sound.
> >
> A kernel compile isn't interactive - sure. It may get some boosts
> anyway for io waiting. This quite correctly puts it above a
> pure cpu hog like a mandelbrot calculation.

Why? Not why does the scheduler do that, but why *should* a compile be in
any way more deserving that a Mandelbrot? It isn't obvious to me that
either are interacting with the user, and if they are it would be the
Mandelbrot doing realtime display.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

- 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/