Re: [PATCH] O11int for interactivity

From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de>
Cc: Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] O11int for interactivity
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:38:23 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1059557903.3f27920f97d4a@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200307301040.38858.m.c.p@wolk-project.de>

Quoting Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de>:

> On Wednesday 30 July 2003 10:29, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> 
> Hi Felipe,
> 
> > I'm running 2.6.0-test2-mm1 + O11int.patch + O11.1int.patch and I must
> > say this is getting damn good! In the past, I've had to tweak scheduler
> > knobs to tune the engine to my taste, but since O10, this is a thing of
> > the past. It's working as smooth as silk...
> > Good work!
> I really really wonder why I don't experience this behaviour. For me, the
> best 
> scheduler patch in the past was the one from you. I had a test last night 
> with 011.1 and I rebooted into 2.4 back after some hours of testing because 
> it is unusable for me under load, and it is no heavy load, it's just for 
> example a simple "make -j2 bzImage modules".
> 
> What makes me even more wondering is that 2.6.0-test1-wli tree does not suck
> 
> at all for interactivity where no scheduler changes were made.
> 
> Maybe we need both: VM fixups (we need them anyway!) and O(1) fixups so that
>                     also my machine will be happy ;)

The obvious question still needs to be asked here. How does vanilla compare to
vanilla +O11.1?

Con