[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version
Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
>>Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
>>scheduler related interactivity regressions.
>I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are
>scheduler-related. They all tend to be disk IO issues (bad scheduling or
>just plain bad drivers), and then sometimes just VM misbehaviour.
>People are looking at all these RT patches, when the thing is that most
>nobody will ever be able to tell the difference between 10us and 1ms
>latencies unless it causes a skip in audio.
True, and I just couldn't agree more with Lee that lots of the delays
that one looks at is because of user space. Still, I have some doubt on
how faster 2.6 is sometimes, where 2.4 is faster in other things.

i.e. As my newbie view, I can see 2.6 running faster in X, Compiling and
stuff, but I see 2.4 working much faster when running commands, response
and interaction in the console. But then again, this could be only me...

> Linus
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-23 05:45    [W:0.056 / U:3.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site