From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262330AbVGWDlV (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:41:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262327AbVGWDlV (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:41:21 -0400 Received: from linuxwireless.org.ve.carpathiahost.net ([66.117.45.234]:24511 "EHLO linuxwireless.org.ve.carpathiahost.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262330AbVGWDlO (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:41:14 -0400 Message-ID: <42E1AE11.5020207@linuxwireless.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:40:17 -0500 From: Alejandro Bonilla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050513 Debian/1.7.8-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Lee Revell , Blaisorblade , LKML , Andrian Bunk , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version References: <200507230244.11338.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <42E1986B.8070202@linuxwireless.org> <1122088160.6510.7.camel@mindpipe> <42E1A832.7010604@linuxwireless.org> <1122088863.6510.19.camel@mindpipe> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote: > > >>Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding >>scheduler related interactivity regressions. >> >> > >I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are >scheduler-related. They all tend to be disk IO issues (bad scheduling or >just plain bad drivers), and then sometimes just VM misbehaviour. > >People are looking at all these RT patches, when the thing is that most >nobody will ever be able to tell the difference between 10us and 1ms >latencies unless it causes a skip in audio. > > True, and I just couldn't agree more with Lee that lots of the delays that one looks at is because of user space. Still, I have some doubt on how faster 2.6 is sometimes, where 2.4 is faster in other things. i.e. As my newbie view, I can see 2.6 running faster in X, Compiling and stuff, but I see 2.4 working much faster when running commands, response and interaction in the console. But then again, this could be only me... > Linus > > > .Alejandro