On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 13:35 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 03:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 08:08 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 01:38 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > > Do you know which of those changes fixes the "ls" problem?
> > >
> > > No, it could be either, both, or neither. Heck, it _could_ be a
> > > combination of all of the things in my experimental tree for that
> > > matter. I put this patch out there because I know they're both bugs,
> > > and strongly suspect it'll cure the worst of the interactivity related
> > > delays.
> > >
> > > I'm hoping you'll test it and confirm that it fixes yours.
> >
> > Nope, this does not fix it. "time ls" ping-pongs back and forth between
> > ~0.1s and ~0.9s. Must have been something else in the first patch.
>
> Hmm. Thinking about it some more, it's probably more than this alone,
> but it could well be the boost qualifier I'm using...
OK, with 2.6.16-rc2-mm1, "ls" bounces around between 0.15s and 0.50s.
Better than mainline but the large seemingly random variance is still
perceptible and annoying. And, "ls | cat" behaves about the same as
"ls", while on mainline it was consistently faster (!).
Do you have an updated patch against -mm that I can test?
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]
