* Fabio Comolli <[email protected]> wrote:
> To answer your latest mail, again I don't have numbers but from my
> point ov view:
>
> 23.1 < 23.1+ck < 23.8+cfs.24
>
> where 23.1+ck is slightly better than vanilla 23.1 and 23.8+cfs.24 is
> much better than 23.1+ck.
>
> My workload is pretty standard, F8+kde+firefox+kmail+amsn, some kernel
> compile and so on.
do you remember which particular workload improved the most, and in
roughly whatway? (no need for numbers - subjective impressions are
accurate enough for this)
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:
- [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Prev by Date:
Re: 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 make headers_check fails
- Next by Date:
Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: Simple DMA memcpy test client
- Previous by thread:
Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Next by thread:
Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7
- Index(es):
[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]