Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 05:11:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 05:11:21 -0400 Received: from mta.sara.nl ([145.100.16.144]:31916 "EHLO mta.sara.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 05:11:04 -0400 Message-Id: <200110030911.LAA03639@zhadum.sara.nl> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 From: Remco Post To: "Dan Mann" cc: "Kernel List" Subject: Re: QNX Scheduler patch In-Reply-To: Message from "Dan Mann" of "Mon, 01 Oct 2001 12:19:50 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:11:26 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Can anyone tell me about experience with the QNX scheduler patch done way > back for kernel 2.0.31? I've been wanting to try it on a 2.4 series kernel > (I'm looking for best possible interactive performance under X), and I want > to know if it is worth porting to the 2.4 line. > > Thanks, > > Dan I tried the patch once or twice. On small systems or systems under heavy load it did give a more responsive feeling on interactive applications. With more modern systems (I tested it on my PowerMac 7200/75) I think the difference is not worth the effort of porting the scheduler. -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Remco Post SARA - Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam High Performance Computing Tel. +31 20 592 8008 Fax. +31 20 668 3167 "I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did the computer industry. Not that that tells us very much of course - the computer industry didn't even foresee that the century was going to end." -- Douglas Adams - 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/