On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 19:44 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> 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 :).
Please don't trim the cc list. I almost didn't see this, and I really
do want to hear each and every opinion.
-Mike
-
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]
