bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:39:38PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Ok, unusable may be overstated. Nonetheless, that bit of code causes
> > serious problems. It makes my little PIII/500 test box trying to fill
> > one 100Mbit local network unusable. That is not overstated.
>
> If you try to make a PIII/500 fill 100mbit of TCP/IP using lots of
> different processes, that IS a corner load.
>
> I'm sure you can fix this (rare) workload but are you very sure you are
> not killing off performance for other situations?
This really has nothing to do w/ workload but rather w/ multi-user processing
/tasking /threading. And the mere fact that the 2.6 kernel prefers
kernel-threads should imply an overall performance increase (think pdflush).
The reason why not many have noticed this scheduler problem(s) is because
most hackers nowadays work w/ the latest fastest hw available which does not
allow them to see these problems (think Windows, where most problems are
resolved by buying the latest hw).
Real Hackers never miss out on making their work run on the smallest common
denominator (think i386dx :).
Thanks!
--
Al
-
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]
