Hi, everyone,
In first place, let me publicly thanks both of you (Info and Con) for
your great work at fixing/tuning the 2.6 scheduler to its best.
Now that Ingo seems to be working again on the scheduler, I feel that
Con and Ingo work is starting to collide. I have been testing Con's
interactivity changes to the scheduler for a very long time, since it's
first O1int patch and I must say that, for my specific workloads, it
gives me the best end-user experience with interactive usage.
I just only wanted to publicly invite Con Kolivas to keep on working
with the scheduler patches he has been doing and that have required a
constant and fair amount of time from him. I don't know if Con patches
do work as good for others in this list as for me, so I also invite
everyone who is/has been testing them to express their feelings so we
all can know what's the current status of the 2.6 scheduler.
As the last point, I do want to invite Ingo and Con to work together to
fix things up definitively. I feel Con scheduler patches give better
interactive results (at least for me) but still feels a little bit slow
when the system is under heavy load and I try to launch new processes,
like a new xterm, for example. On the other side, Ingo patch makes the
system feel much more responsive under heavy loads when launching new
processes, like opening a new konsole tab, but still suffers from
jerkyness on interactive tasks, like the X server.
I think the more people working on the scheduler, the more probability
we have of fixing/tuning the last pieces of code so we can enjoy a full
enterprise-level, but well-behaved with interactive jobs, 2.6 scheduler.
Thanks for listening.
Felipe Alfaro
Scheduler tester :-)
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:28 EST