From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272433AbTGZJb6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:31:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272439AbTGZJb6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:31:58 -0400 Received: from lindsey.linux-systeme.com ([80.190.48.67]:58381 "EHLO mx00.linux-systeme.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272433AbTGZJb4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:31:56 -0400 From: Marc-Christian Petersen Organization: Working Overloaded Linux Kernel To: Felipe Alfaro Solana , LKML Subject: Re: Ingo Molnar and Con Kolivas 2.6 scheduler patches Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:46:45 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: kernel@kolivas.org, mingo@elte.hu References: <1059211833.576.13.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> In-Reply-To: <1059211833.576.13.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307261142.43277.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 26 July 2003 11:30, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: Hi Felipe, > I just only wanted to publicly invite Con Kolivas to keep on working > with the scheduler patches he has been doing and that have required a > constant and fair amount of time from him. I don't know if Con patches > do work as good for others in this list as for me, so I also invite > everyone who is/has been testing them to express their feelings so we > all can know what's the current status of the 2.6 scheduler. For me, all the Oxint Scheduler patches won't work well. Even for O8int I can say the same as for 01int to 07int, the system is dog slow when doing "make -j2 bzImage modules". XMMS does not skip, but hey, I don't care about XMMS skipping at all. I want a system which is responsive under heavy load, where opening an new xterm does not take 5-10 seconds, or writing an email in my MUA looks like a child is writing on a typewriter with one finger ;) 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. ciao, Marc