From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: MIke Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
gcoady@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:08:51 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200602131708.52342.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1139810224.7935.9.camel@homer>
On Monday 13 February 2006 16:57, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 16:37 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 13 February 2006 16:32, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 16:05 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Monday 13 February 2006 15:59, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > Now, let's see if we can get your problem fixed with something that
> > > > > can possibly go into 2.6.16 as a bugfix. Can you please try the
> > > > > below?
> > > >
> > > > These sorts of changes definitely need to pass through -mm first...
> > > > and don't forget -mm looks quite different to mainline.
> > >
> > > I'll leave that up to Ingo of course, and certainly have no problem
> > > with them burning in mm. However, I must say that I personally
> > > classify these two changes as being trivial and obviously correct
> > > enough to be included in 2.6.16.
> >
> > This part I agree with:
> > - } else
> > - requeue_task(next, array);
> > + }
> >
> > The rest changes behaviour; it's not a "bug" so needs testing, should be
> > a separate patch from this part, and modified to suit -mm.
>
> Well, both change behavior, and I heartily disagree.
The first change was the previous behaviour for some time. Your latter change
while it makes sense has never been in the kernel. Either way I don't
disagree with your reasoning but most things that change behaviour should go
through -mm. The first as I said was the behaviour in mainline for some time
till my silly requeue change.
Cheers,
Con
> Blocking a 700ms
> sleep while allowing a 100ms sleep to bypass the same checkpoint only to
> then be multiplied by 10 is a bug.
>
> Actually, the point at which a task becomes interactive is the point at
> which scheduler semantics change. Ergo, as far as I'm concerned, this
> should be a boundary which must be crossed before proceeding further.
> That, I agree, would be a behavioral change which should be baked in mm.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-13 6:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-08 2:11 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown Grant Coady
2006-02-08 2:24 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-08 2:50 ` Grant Coady
2006-02-08 3:02 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-08 2:35 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-08 2:55 ` Grant Coady
2006-02-08 3:00 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-08 4:12 ` Barry K. Nathan
2006-02-08 4:41 ` Grant Coady
2006-02-08 4:51 ` Grant Coady
2006-02-08 5:17 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-02-08 5:39 ` Grant Coady
2006-02-08 7:43 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-09 17:06 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-02-09 20:06 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-10 6:35 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-12 13:47 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-12 19:03 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-12 21:36 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-12 23:23 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-12 23:39 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-13 3:09 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 3:39 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-13 4:59 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 5:05 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-13 5:32 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 5:37 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-13 5:57 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 6:08 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2006-02-13 6:35 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 6:38 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-13 7:08 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 8:43 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-13 10:06 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 12:35 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-15 4:22 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-15 5:22 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-15 6:11 ` Lee Revell
2006-02-15 7:17 ` MIke Galbraith
2006-02-13 7:15 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-13 7:41 ` MIke Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200602131708.52342.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=gcoady@gmail.com \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox