Hi,
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I could also call this perfomance regressions to 2.6.15, unless there
> > is a good reason not to include them, I'd prefer to see it in 2.6.16.
>
> can you measure it? This is tricky code, we definitely dont want to
> change it this late in the v2.6.16 cycles, execpt if it's some
> measurable performance issue that users will see. (or if it's some
> regression, which it isnt.)
Why is not a regression?
I'm busy enough with m68k as is just to catch up and you're not making it
easier. Such repetitive task have a tendency to show up pretty high when I
occasionally run an profile test run, e.g. a much simpler vertical blank
interrupt at 50Hz is noticable. The new hrtimer code is much heavier and
runs twice as much.
bye, Roman
-
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]
