Re: 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown

[Lee Revell]

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 04:09 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> 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...

This seems to manifest on my system as the mouse getting jerky under
load.  Still, I don't mind - the overall feel is still smoother - as if
the X server was getting too much CPU before.

Lee

-
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/