| 1 |
On Dienstag, 19. August 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 19 August 2008 15:30:07 Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Håkon Alstadheim wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > << SNIP >> |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > I'm running the machine for multi-media-use, and I would like to make |
| 7 |
> > > sure that I tune the media-programs to leave sufficcient cpu to handle |
| 8 |
> > > the odd house-keeping task, while at the same time doing as much |
| 9 |
> > > post-processing for image and sound quality as possible. Is there a |
| 10 |
> > > way to get top to make sense, or are there other tools you good people |
| 11 |
> > > would recommend ? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > The only thing I can think of that may help is to use the nice command |
| 14 |
> > to give some processes more or less priority. That may or may not help |
| 15 |
> > you any but it is a thought. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Otherwise, I tend to agree with Alan. Leave it to the kernel. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I thought of one thing that might help - perhaps the media apps in question |
| 20 |
> are single threaded and might benefit from a different preemption model |
| 21 |
> algorithm. Give the old-fashioned server model a try instead of desktop or |
| 22 |
> low-latency desktop. It's worth a try, YMMV |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
and voluntary preemption beats forced preemption. |
Archives