Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown | From | MIke Galbraith <> | Date | Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:09:29 +0100 |
| |
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...
> > Now to regression test it...
...and may cause test applications to not reach their proper priority before measurement begins.
-Mike
- 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/
| |