From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262365AbTJISyj (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:54:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262375AbTJISyj (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:54:39 -0400 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:38416 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262365AbTJISyi (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:54:38 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.0-test6 Date: 9 Oct 2003 18:44:56 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <<3F7CBDD4.7010503@cyberone.com.au>> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1065725096 5618 192.168.12.62 (9 Oct 2003 18:44:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article , Jason Munro wrote: | On October 2, 7:07 pm Nick Piggin wrote: | > | > Pedro Larroy wrote: | > | > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:05:36PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: | > > I'm afraid this selection criteria leads to a scheduler that isn't | > > predictable for situations that aren't the ones for which is tuned to | > > work. Of course I may be wrong, but to me, seems that saying | > > explicitly which tasks are interactive sounds better. | > > | > | > Have a look at my scheduler if you like. It won't estimate interactivity | > but it works quite well if you nice -10 your X server. Ie. explicitly | > state which process should be favoured. | > http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v15a/ | | I don't know much about kernel internals but of the 2.5 and 2.6 kernels I | have tried, 2.6.0-test6 is by far the best on the desktop for my use (xmms, | vmware, firebird, loads of other apps). With this patch it's better still. | Before patching simple things like ls or ps have an annoying slowness while | under a moderate/heavy load. For the most part things are fine but after | patching commands respond more quickly. This is the first time for me a | 2.5+ kernel has been responsive enough to use on a daily basis. I really like my "np15a" patch, but it doesn't seem to play well with preempt in terms of performance. Stability is fine so far. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.