* Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > know of any other reports then please let me know!)
>
> There was Caglar Onur too but he said he will redo all the tests.
> [...]
well, Caglar said CFSv7 works as well as CFSv6 in his latest tests and
that he'll redo all the tests to re-verify his original regression
report :)
> In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for
> everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect.
>
> I had the feeling that SD matched that goal right now, [...]
curious, which are the reports where in your opinion CFS behaves worse
than vanilla? There were two audio skipping reports against CFS, the
most serious one got resolved and i hope the other one has been resolved
by the same fix as well. (i'm still waiting for feedback on that one)
> [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it might be
a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?
Ingo
-
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/
- References:
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
[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]
