Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown | From | MIke Galbraith <> | Date | Mon, 13 Feb 2006 06:57:04 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 16:37 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Monday 13 February 2006 16:32, MIke Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 16:05 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Monday 13 February 2006 15:59, MIke Galbraith wrote: > > > > Now, let's see if we can get your problem fixed with something that can > > > > possibly go into 2.6.16 as a bugfix. Can you please try the below? > > > > > > These sorts of changes definitely need to pass through -mm first... and > > > don't forget -mm looks quite different to mainline. > > > > I'll leave that up to Ingo of course, and certainly have no problem with > > them burning in mm. However, I must say that I personally classify > > these two changes as being trivial and obviously correct enough to be > > included in 2.6.16. > > This part I agree with: > - } else > - requeue_task(next, array); > + } > > The rest changes behaviour; it's not a "bug" so needs testing, should be a > separate patch from this part, and modified to suit -mm.
Well, both change behavior, and I heartily disagree. Blocking a 700ms sleep while allowing a 100ms sleep to bypass the same checkpoint only to then be multiplied by 10 is a bug.
Actually, the point at which a task becomes interactive is the point at which scheduler semantics change. Ergo, as far as I'm concerned, this should be a boundary which must be crossed before proceeding further. That, I agree, would be a behavioral change which should be baked in mm.
-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/
| |