From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:59:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:59:32 -0500 Received: from [63.95.87.168] ([63.95.87.168]:27404 "HELO xi.linuxpower.cx") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:59:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:59:24 -0500 From: Gregory Maxwell To: Shawn Starr Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4.x and 2.4.1-preX - Higher latency then 2.2.x kernels? Message-ID: <20010120145924.A22169@xi.linuxpower.cx> In-Reply-To: <3A69EBF8.B35A3B80@Home.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.8i In-Reply-To: <3A69EBF8.B35A3B80@Home.net>; from Shawn.Starr@Home.net on Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 02:50:16PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 02:50:16PM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote: > It just seems that since using 2.4 ive noticed my poor Pentium 200Mhz > slow down whether being in X or otherwise. It just seems that the system > is sluggish. > > I am using the new ReiserFS filesystem and I do know its still in heavy > development perhaps my latency is due to this (?) Reiserfs uses much more complex data structures then ext2 (trees..). I don't think that latency has ever been a design criteria and all of the benchmarks they use are pretty much pure throughput tests. So it wouldn't be really surprising if reiserfs had very bad latency. You should apply the timepegs patch and profile your kernel latency to see where it's coming from. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/