Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:40:17 -0500 | From | Alejandro Bonilla <> | Subject | Re: 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 > > > .Alejandro - 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/
| |