| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Friday 19 November 2010, Nikos |
| 2 |
Chantziaras did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 11/19/2010 04:37 AM, Adam Carter wrote: |
| 5 |
> > 2.6.38 should contain a ~200 line patch that makes a huge difference to |
| 6 |
> > desktop responsiveness under load; |
| 7 |
> > "Tests done by Mike show the maximum latency dropping by over ten times |
| 8 |
> > and the average latency of the desktop by about 60 times" |
| 9 |
> > Ref: |
| 10 |
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2637_video&num=1 |
| 11 |
> > <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2637_video&num |
| 12 |
> > =1> |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > And a RedHat dev reckons you can get the same via configuration; |
| 15 |
> > Ref: |
| 16 |
> > http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/alternative-to-200-lines-kernel-patch.html |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > I havent tried it yet... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Doesn't this patch group tasks by TTY? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As I understand it, the kernel patch does group by TTY. Personally I think |
| 23 |
that's just one way of doing it and there could be others. So it's more proof- |
| 24 |
of-concept than TheOneTrueWay(tm) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The config and bash commands method from RedHat does things slightly |
| 27 |
differently. Prevailing opinion on /. is that the patch method is cleaner but |
| 28 |
more restrictive, which the userspace method is more configurable but requires |
| 29 |
root. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Perhaps distros will pick up on this and offer other criteria, maybe something |
| 32 |
like a profile selectable at boot-time or maybe even runtime. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
What *I* would like to see is flash goes into it's own group and gets |
| 35 |
throttled. Everything else running under KDE is in a different group and left |
| 36 |
to run full speed |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives