Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:39:34 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 04:09 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 18:39 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 22:36 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote: > > > On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 14:03 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 14:47 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote: > > > > > If you think it's the scheduler, how about try the patch below. It's > > > > > against 2.6.16-rc2-mm1, and should tell you if it is the interactivity > > > > > logic in the scheduler or not. I don't see other candidates in there, > > > > > not that that means there aren't any of course. > > > > > > > > I'll try, but it's a serious pain for me to build an -mm kernel. A > > > > patch against 2.6.16-rc1 would be much easier. > > > > > > Ok, here she comes. It's a bit too reluctant to release a task so it > > > can reach interactive status at the moment, but for this test, that's a > > > feature. In fact, for this test, it's probably best to jump straight to > > > setting both g1 and g2 to zero. > > > > Not only does this fix my "time ls" test case, it seems to drastically > > improve interactivity for my desktop apps. I was really being plagued > > by weird stalls, it's much smoother now. > > Yeah, but under load, that reluctance to release is fairly annoying...
This seems to manifest on my system as the mouse getting jerky under load. Still, I don't mind - the overall feel is still smoother - as if the X server was getting too much CPU before.
Lee
- 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/
| |