Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:01:53 +0200
From: Diego Calleja =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Garc=EDa?= <diegocg@teleline.es>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: phillips@arcor.de, ed.sweetman@wmich.edu, eugene.teo@eugeneteo.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Ingo Molnar and Con Kolivas 2.6 scheduler patches
Message-Id: <20030727010153.7e2e0d48.diegocg@teleline.es>
In-Reply-To: <20030726113522.447578d8.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <1059211833.576.13.camel@teapot.felipe-alfaro.com>
	<20030726101015.GA3922@eugeneteo.net>
	<3F2264DF.7060306@wmich.edu>
	<200307271046.30318.phillips@arcor.de>
	<20030726113522.447578d8.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 796
Lines: 19

El Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> escribi?:

> It is interesting that Felipe says that stock 2.5.69 was the best CPU
> scheduler of the 2.5 series.  Do others agree with that?

No.
For me, 2.5.63 was the best. Or perhaps it was .64 or .65?

What I know is that the best CPU scheduler was the one previous 
to the "interactivity changes" from Linus. I mean, if Linus' changes
went in .65, then it's .64, etc.

Perhaps for other people it's .69....probably it also depends a lot
on the hardware side. For me .63 was "good"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/