Re: Ingo Molnar and Con Kolivas 2.6 scheduler patches

From: Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel@kolivas.org, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: Ingo Molnar and Con Kolivas 2.6 scheduler patches
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:31:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1059244278.576.0.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030726181913.GY15452@holomorphy.com>

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.