lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
    The problem here is that when people report
    that the low latency patch works better for them
    than the preempt patch, they aren't talking about
    bebnchmarking the time to compile a kernel, they
    are talking about interactive feel and smoothness.

    You're speaking to a peripheral issue.

    I've no agenda other than wanting to see linux
    as an attractive option for the multimedia and
    gaming crowds - and in my experience, the low
    latency patches simply give a much smoother
    feel and a more pleasant experience. Kernel
    compilation time is the farthest thing from my
    mind when e.g. playing Q3A!

    I'd be happy to check out the preempt patch
    again and see if anything's changed, if the
    problem of tux+preempt oopsing has been
    dealt with -

    Regards,

    jjs

    Robert Love wrote:

    >On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 12:42, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote:
    >
    >> 13-pre5aa1 18-pre2aa2 18-pre3 18-pre3s 18-pre3sp 18-pre3minill
    >>j100: 6:59.79 78% 7:07.62 76% * 6:39.55 81% 6:24.79 83% *
    >>j100: 7:03.39 77% 8:10.04 66% * 8:07.13 66% 6:21.23 83% *
    >>j100: 6:40.40 81% 7:43.15 70% * 6:37.46 81% 6:03.68 87% *
    >>j100: 7:45.12 70% 7:11.59 75% * 7:14.46 74% 6:06.98 87% *
    >>j100: 6:56.71 79% 7:36.12 71% * 6:26.59 83% 6:11.30 86% *
    >>
    >>j75: 6:22.33 85% 6:42.50 81% 6:48.83 80% 6:01.61 89% 5:42.66 93% 7:07.56 77%
    >>j75: 6:41.47 81% 7:19.79 74% 6:49.43 79% 5:59.82 89% 6:00.83 88% 7:17.15 74%
    >>j75: 6:10.32 88% 6:44.98 80% 7:01.01 77% 6:02.99 88% 5:48.00 91% 6:47.48 80%
    >>j75: 6:28.55 84% 6:44.21 80% 9:33.78 57% 6:19.83 85% 5:49.07 91% 6:34.02 83%
    >>j75: 6:17.15 86% 6:46.58 80% 7:24.52 73% 6:23.50 84% 5:58.06 88% 7:01.39 77%
    >>
    >
    >Again, preempt seems to reign supreme. Where is all the information
    >correlating preempt is inferior? To be fair, however, we should bench a
    >mini-ll+s test.
    >
    >But I stand by my original point that none of this matters all too
    >much. A preemptive kernel will allow for future latency reduction
    >_without_ using explicit scheduling points everywhere there is a
    >problem. This means we can tackle the problem and not provide a million
    >bandaids.
    >
    > Robert Love
    >
    >-
    >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/
    >


    -
    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 13:18    [W:0.031 / U:0.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site