From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:02:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:02:29 -0500 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:6327 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:02:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:09:42 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli cc: Christoph Hellwig , rml@tech9.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4 Message-ID: <124510000.1038949781@titus> In-Reply-To: <3DED18CC.5770EA90@digeo.com> References: <20021202192652.A25938@sgi.com> <1919608311.1038822649@[10.10.2.3]> <3DEBB4BD.F64B6ADC@digeo.com> <20021202195003.GC28164@dualathlon.random> <3DED18CC.5770EA90@digeo.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> please try with my tree. > > It is greatly improved. It is still not as smooth as the standard 2.4 > scheduler, but I'd characterise it as "a bit jerky" rather than "makes > me want to punch a hole in the monitor". > > The difference is unlikely to be noticed by many. (But it should be > _better_ than stock 2.4) ... >> can you reproduce with my tree? > > Again, hugely improved over normal O(1) behaviour, but not as responsive > as the stock 2.4 scheduler. Andrea, which patches in your tree are the ones that fix this? If it's the big-monster one ... any chance you could split out the bits actually fix it? I'd love to be able to apply your fixes to 2.5 and try them there .... Thanks, M.