lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.119 / U:5.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site