One big difference that I’ve noticed between Windows and Linux is that Windows does a much better job ensuring that the system stays responsive even under heavy load.

For instance, I often need to compile Rust code. Anyone who writes Rust knows that the Rust compiler is very good at using all your cores and all the CPU time it can get its hands on (which is good, you want it to compile as fast as possible after all). But that means that for a time while my Rust code is compiling, I will be maxing out all my CPU cores at 100% usage.

When this happens on Windows, I’ve never really noticed. I can use my web browser or my code editor just fine while the code compiles, so I’ve never really thought about it.

However, on Linux when all my cores reach 100%, I start to notice it. It seems like every window I have open starts to lag and I get stuttering as the programs struggle to get a little bit of CPU that’s left. My web browser starts lagging with whole seconds of no response and my editor behaves the same. Even my KDE Plasma desktop environment starts lagging.

I suppose Windows must be doing something clever to somehow prioritize user-facing GUI applications even in the face of extreme CPU starvation, while Linux doesn’t seem to do a similar thing (or doesn’t do it as well).

Is this an inherent problem of Linux at the moment or can I do something to improve this? I’m on Kubuntu 24.04 if it matters. Also, I don’t believe it is a memory or I/O problem as my memory is sitting at around 60% usage when it happens with 0% swap usage, while my CPU sits at basically 100% on all cores. I’ve also tried disabling swap and it doesn’t seem to make a difference.

EDIT: Tried nice -n +19, still lags my other programs.

EDIT 2: Tried installing the Liquorix kernel, which is supposedly better for this kinda thing. I dunno if it’s placebo but stuff feels a bit snappier now? My mouse feels more responsive. Again, dunno if it’s placebo. But anyways, I tried compiling again and it still lags my other stuff.

  • Amanda@aggregatet.org
    link
    fedilink
    Svenska
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Lots of bad answers here. Obviously the kernel should schedule the UI to be responsive even under high load. That’s doable; just prioritise running those over batch jobs. That’s a perfectly valid demand to have on your system.

    This is one of the cases where Linux shows its history as a large shared unix system and its focus as a server OS; if the desktop is just a program like any other, who’s to say it should have more priority than Rust?

    I’ve also run into this problem. I never found a solution for this, but I think one of those fancy new schedulers might work, or at least is worth a shot. I’d appreciate hearing about it if it does work for you!

    Hopefully in a while there are separate desktop-oriented schedulers for the desktop distros (and ideally also better OOM handlers), but that seems to be a few years away maybe.

    In the short term you may have some success in adjusting the priority of Rust with nice, an incomprehensibly named tool to adjust the priority of your processes. High numbers = low priority (the task is “nicer” to the system). You run it like this: nice -n5 cargo build.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      Obviously the kernel should schedule the UI to be responsive even under high load.

      Obviously… to you.

      This is one of the cases where Linux shows its history as a large shared unix system and its focus as a server OS; if the desktop is just a program like any other,

      Exactly.

      • SorteKanin@feddit.dkOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        Obviously… to you.

        No. I’m sorry but if you are logged in with a desktop environment, obviously the UI of that desktop needs to stay responsive at all times, also under heavy load. If you don’t care about such a basic requirement, you could run the system without a desktop or you could tweak it yourself. But the default should be that a desktop is prioritized and input from users is responded to as quickly as possible.

        This whole “Linux shouldn’t assume anything”-attitude is not helpful. It harms Linux’s potential as a replacement for Windows and macOS and also just harms its UX. Linux cannot ever truly replace Windows and macOS if it doesn’t start thinking about these basic UX guarantees, like a responsive desktop.

        This is one of the cases where Linux shows its history as a large shared unix system and its focus as a server OS; if the desktop is just a program like any other,

        Exactly.

        You say that like it’s a good thing; it is not. The desktop is not a program like any other, it is much more important that the desktop keeps being responsive than most other programs in the general case. Of course, you should have the ability to customize that but for the default and the general case, desktop responsiveness needs to be prioritized.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 days ago

          Even for a server, the UI should always be priority. If you’re not using the desktop/UI, what’s the harm?

          When you do need to remote into a box, it’s often when shit’s already sideways, and having an unresponsive UI (or even a sluggish shell) gets old.

          A person interacting with a system needs priority.

      • Amanda@aggregatet.org
        link
        fedilink
        Svenska
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        12 days ago

        I meant, obviously in the sense that Windows and macOS both apparently already do this and that it’s a desirable property to have, not that it’s technically easy.