Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> I can't find the original post I'm thinking about but
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/16/68 says essentially the same thing.
The scheduler is being improved for better behaviour on complex
topologies like multi core + NUMA and multi level NUMA systems.
If Con's work had gone in first, then conversely these improvements
would have had to wait.
There's also my all-time favorite, http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/14/4
What's wrong with that? The slowdown is due to the workload
becoming disk bound. The reasons are still not entirely clear,
but I don't think it is a recent (ie. 2.6) regression (or even
a regression at all IIRC).
The lack of QA seems appalling here, and I'm sure Reiser has had
to do more of that for DARPA than most linux kernel hackers around.
And what QA would you have preferred?
I think if you are resorting to bringing up all time favourite
blunders when trying to justify Reiser4 being included, then
that is a sign right there that something is fundamentally wrong
(if not with the code, then with your line of thought0
And note my email has nothing to do with any *real* argument for
or against R4.
Thanks,
Nick
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
