On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 20:19, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 11:46:45AM +0200, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> > Now that I've tested 2.6.0-test-1-wli (William Lee Irwin's Tree) for over a
> > week, I thought about, that the problem might _not_ be only the O(1)
> > Scheduler, because -wli has changed almost nothing to the scheduler stuff,
> > it's almost 2.6.0-test1 code and running that kernel, my system is _alot_
> > more responsive than 2.6.0-test1 or 2.6.0-test1-mm* or all the Oxint
> > scheduler fixes have ever been.
> > Strange no?
> > P.S.: I've not tested Ingo's G3 scheduler fix yet. More to come.
>
> I've no plausible explanation for this; perhaps the only possible one
> is that one of the algorithms that was sped up was behaving badly enough
> to interfere with scheduling.
I've also noticed that 2.6.0-test1-wl1A behaves pretty well, given that
no major changes to the CPU scheduler are included.
-
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 - 22:00:29 EST