Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:45:31 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
Cc: Jean Tourrilhes <jt@hpl.hp.com>,
       Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.4] Wireless Extension v17 (resend)
Message-ID: <20050208224531.GE1850@alpha.home.local>
References: <20050208181637.GB29717@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20050208180116.GA10695@logos.cnet> <20050208215112.GB3290@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20050208184145.GD10799@logos.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050208184145.GD10799@logos.cnet>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1207
Lines: 31

Hi Marcelo,

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > 
> > 	There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people
> > to upgrade, I guess...
> 
> Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully, 

When a CPU-hungry task freezes another one for more than 13 seconds, I cannot
agree with your last statement, and that's why I still don't upgrade. I have
already posted examples of worst case scenarios, but I now start to have a
more meaningful example to show so that people working on the scheduler may
have something clearer to work with. I also did not have time to retest -ck
or staircase recently, but I will do for completeness.

> handles highmem decently, LSM/SELinux, etc, etc...
> 
> IMO everyone should upgrade whenever appropriate. 

I still know about a tens of 2.2 still running around at customers ;-)
However, if it had not been for lazyness, they should have upgraded.

Cheers,
Willy

-
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/