Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:38:23 +1000 | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O11int for interactivity |
| |
Quoting Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de>:
> On Wednesday 30 July 2003 10:29, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: > > Hi Felipe, > > > I'm running 2.6.0-test2-mm1 + O11int.patch + O11.1int.patch and I must > > say this is getting damn good! In the past, I've had to tweak scheduler > > knobs to tune the engine to my taste, but since O10, this is a thing of > > the past. It's working as smooth as silk... > > Good work! > I really really wonder why I don't experience this behaviour. For me, the > best > scheduler patch in the past was the one from you. I had a test last night > with 011.1 and I rebooted into 2.4 back after some hours of testing because > it is unusable for me under load, and it is no heavy load, it's just for > example a simple "make -j2 bzImage modules". > > What makes me even more wondering is that 2.6.0-test1-wli tree does not suck > > at all for interactivity where no scheduler changes were made. > > Maybe we need both: VM fixups (we need them anyway!) and O(1) fixups so that > also my machine will be happy ;)
The obvious question still needs to be asked here. How does vanilla compare to vanilla +O11.1?
Con - 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/
| |