![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:23:09 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> wrote: > Ed Sweetman wrote: > > > > If you want to test the preempt kernel you're going to need something that > > can find the mean latancy or "time to action" for a particular program or > > all programs being run at the time and then run multiple programs that you > > would find on various peoples' systems. That is the "feel" people talk > > about when they praise the preempt patch. > > Right. And that is precisely why I created the "mini-ll" patch. To > give the improved "feel" in a way which is acceptable for merging into > the 2.4 kernel. Hm, I am not quite sure about what you expect to hear about it, but: a) It applies cleanly to 2.4.18-pre3. b) It compiles c) During a load of around 150 produced by (of course :-) "make -j bzImage" and concurrent XMMS playing while my mail-client and mozilla are open, I cannot "feel" a real big difference in interactivity compared to vanilla kernel. XMMS hickups sometimes, mouse does kangaroo'ing, switching around different X-screens and screen refresh (especially mozilla of course) are no big hit. This is a dual PIII-1GHz/2 GB RAM and some swap. During make no swapping is going on. Sorry, but I cannot see (feel) the difference in _this_ test (if this is really a test for what you intend to do). Compile time btw makes no difference either. Perhaps this try is rather something for ingo and the scheduler... Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||