Re: Linux 2.6.0-test6

[bill davidsen]

In article <ddcbaa61f5ab6ec90c71a70bb3990b49@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Jason Munro <jason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| On October 2, 7:07 pm Nick Piggin <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >
| > Pedro Larroy wrote:
| >
| > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:05:36PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
| > > I'm afraid this selection criteria leads to a scheduler that isn't
| > > predictable for situations that aren't the ones for which is tuned to
| > > work. Of course I may be wrong, but to me, seems that saying
| > > explicitly which tasks are interactive sounds better.
| > >
| >
| > Have a look at my scheduler if you like. It won't estimate interactivity
| > but it works quite well if you nice -10 your X server. Ie. explicitly
| > state which process should be favoured.
| > http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v15a/
| 
| I don't know much about kernel internals but of the 2.5 and 2.6 kernels I
| have tried, 2.6.0-test6 is by far the best on the desktop for my use (xmms,
| vmware, firebird, loads of other apps). With this patch it's better still.
| Before patching simple things like ls or ps have an annoying slowness while
| under a moderate/heavy load. For the most part things are fine but after
| patching commands respond more quickly. This is the first time for me a
| 2.5+ kernel has been responsive enough to use on a daily basis.

I really like my "np15a" patch, but it doesn't seem to play well with
preempt in terms of performance. Stability is fine so far.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/