Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751280AbWANFlX (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:41:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750748AbWANFlX (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:41:23 -0500 Received: from mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.184]:56008 "EHLO mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751515AbWANFlW (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:41:22 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:40:44 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 Cc: Peter Williams , Martin Bligh , Andy Whitcroft , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar References: <43C45BDC.1050402@google.com> <43C84496.6060506@bigpond.net.au> <43C8861E.5070203@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <43C8861E.5070203@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601141640.45582.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 626 Lines: 14 On Saturday 14 January 2006 16:03, Nick Piggin wrote: > Ideally, balancing should be completely unaffected when all tasks are > of priority 0 which is what I thought yours did, and why I think the > current system is not great. The current smp nice in mainline 2.6.15 is performance neutral when all are the same priority. It's only this improved version in -mm that is not. Con - 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/