On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 22:36 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 14:03 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 14:47 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> > > If you think it's the scheduler, how about try the patch below. It's
> > > against 2.6.16-rc2-mm1, and should tell you if it is the interactivity
> > > logic in the scheduler or not. I don't see other candidates in there,
> > > not that that means there aren't any of course.
> >
> > I'll try, but it's a serious pain for me to build an -mm kernel. A
> > patch against 2.6.16-rc1 would be much easier.
>
> Ok, here she comes. It's a bit too reluctant to release a task so it
> can reach interactive status at the moment, but for this test, that's a
> feature. In fact, for this test, it's probably best to jump straight to
> setting both g1 and g2 to zero.
Thanks, this solves the "ls" problem I was having! The strange
"oscillating" behavior is gone, now it consistently takes 0.19-0.45s.
It's still not as consistent as "time ls | cat", which takes 0.19-0.26s,
but MUCH better.
Lee
-
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]
