From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269693AbTGJXQI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:16:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269694AbTGJXQI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:16:08 -0400 Received: from 153.Red-213-4-13.pooles.rima-tde.net ([213.4.13.153]:4356 "EHLO small.felipe-alfaro.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269693AbTGJXP6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:15:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux 2.5.75 From: Felipe Alfaro Solana To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1057879835.584.7.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 11 Jul 2003 01:30:36 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 23:14, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok. This is it. We (Andrew and me) are going to start a "pre-2.6" series, > where getting patches in is going to be a lot harder. This is the last > 2.5.x kernel, so take note. Is there any expected or planned timeframe to finalize the pre-2.6 series and end up with a stable 2.6.0 kernel? I'm worried about the current status of the 2.5 kernel scheduler. I know that Con is working hard to nail down all the problems that some people like me are having. I don't still feel comfortable with it, and although Con patches are several orders of magnitude better than stock scheduler, there are minor problems. Sometime ago, I made down a combo patch and, sincerely, it's the one I'm using the most for my desktop boxes as it's the one that gets better response times and interactive feeling. For my server boxes, neither my combo patch, neither Con or stock do feel good when the system is under heavy load. It suffers from starvation. Simply doing a "tar jxvf" makes logging into the system a PITA. Just my 2 cents.