Re: Desktop Kernel Stuff

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 11:51, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > I'm compiling something in the background. In my ignorance, I 
> > > feel like it
> > > should be possible to reserve 10% of the processor's capacity 
> > > for these
> > > things. 
> > 
> > Was this completely stupid then? Don't be afraid to say so.

(^^ this is a misleading quote, if anyone's jumping into this thread)

> No - its actually part of what schedulers try to do - tasks that sleep
> get more rapid access to the CPU than ones that slog along eating it.

Murray: In fact, I think 2.5 does have scheduler changes that
distributes spare processor time from X clients up to the X server if
the clients don't actually need it. That starts to recognise X as being
an "interactive" process due to all its interactive clients instead of a
background daemon-type process. And so, it gets more processor time if
its available.

But that explanation could be really wrong, I am not a kernel hacker.

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

The lighting designer is expected to be a master of art, science,
history, psychology, communications, politics and sometimes even
mind reading. -- Stage Lighting Design 101