Bug 84482 - Interactive performance concerns
Interactive performance concerns
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
9
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Arjan van de Ven
Brian Brock
:
Depends On: 84833
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2003-02-17 16:50 EST by Michael Fulbright
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:51 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-09-30 11:40:32 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Michael Fulbright 2003-02-17 16:50:27 EST
Arjan asked me to file this for tracking.

On a 1GHZ Athlon with 512MB RAM and a Millenium ][ video card, the GNOME desktop
feels sluggish compared to the same experience with 8.0.

I bumped the X process using renice -10, does help much.

At 1280x1024 and 1024x768, the following is noticably sluggish:

 1) open emacs with 'emacs -fn 10x20 <file>'
 2) resize to height of screen
 3) open a gnome-terminal and drag it (opaque drag in metacity) around in circles
    across the emacs window.
 4) you will see the gnome-terminal window trailing the mouse pointer, trying to
    keep up.
Comment 1 Ingo Molnar 2003-02-17 16:57:16 EST
is interactivity with X reniced to -10 just as good as it was in 8.0?

we might as well consider using nice -10 for X, since the major complaint when
we did the nice -10 change was that 'gnome terminal is sluggish' - which turned
out to be a different bug (hopefully fixed in the next snapshot).

was there any other regression with the X server reniced to -10, other than the
gnome-terminal problem?
Comment 2 Ingo Molnar 2003-02-18 07:02:00 EST
i'm strongly in favor of reinstating the nice -10 priority of X.

we could do this in the kernel, but the preferred way would be to do it in the X
server. Any chance to have that done now?
Comment 3 Michael Fulbright 2003-08-18 17:06:37 EDT
What was the final resolution for this issue for new kernels?
Comment 4 Mike A. Harris 2003-08-18 21:49:52 EDT
That changing the X server priority is nothing more than a hack.  Instead,
the kernel should work with interactive processes in a better manner.  Our
current kernels IMHO do this MUCH better, and allegedly 2.6.0 test series
improves upon that, however I can't confirm that personally yet.

I think this can be closed safely now, but I'll leave that to a kernel
scheduler grand wizard.  ;o)
Comment 5 Bugzilla owner 2004-09-30 11:40:32 EDT
Thanks for the bug report. However, Red Hat no longer maintains this version of
the product. Please upgrade to the latest version and open a new bug if the problem
persists.

The Fedora Legacy project (http://fedoralegacy.org/) maintains some older releases, 
and if you believe this bug is interesting to them, please report the problem in
the bug tracker at: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.