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
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |