Subject: Re: 2.6 vs 2.4, ssh terminal slowdown
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: MIke Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
       gcoady@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <1139812538.7744.8.camel@homer>
References: <j4kiu1de3tnck2bs7609ckmt89pfoumlbe@4ax.com>
	 <200602131637.43335.kernel@kolivas.org> <1139810224.7935.9.camel@homer>
	 <200602131708.52342.kernel@kolivas.org>  <1139812538.7744.8.camel@homer>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:38:45 -0500
Message-Id: <1139812725.2739.94.camel@mindpipe>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2252
Lines: 47

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 07:35 +0100, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 17:08 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Monday 13 February 2006 16:57, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 16:37 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Monday 13 February 2006 16:32, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 16:05 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday 13 February 2006 15:59, MIke Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > > > Now, let's see if we can get your problem fixed with something that
> > > > > > > can possibly go into 2.6.16 as a bugfix.  Can you please try the
> > > > > > > below?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These sorts of changes definitely need to pass through -mm first...
> > > > > > and don't forget -mm looks quite different to mainline.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll leave that up to Ingo of course, and certainly have no problem
> > > > > with them burning in mm.  However, I must say that I personally
> > > > > classify these two changes as being trivial and obviously correct
> > > > > enough to be included in 2.6.16.
> > > >
> > > > This part I agree with:
> > > > -               } else
> > > > -                       requeue_task(next, array);
> > > > +               }
> > > >
> > > > The rest changes behaviour; it's not a "bug" so needs testing, should be
> > > > a separate patch from this part, and modified to suit -mm.
> > >
> > > Well, both change behavior, and I heartily disagree.  
> > 
> > The first change was the previous behaviour for some time. Your latter change 
> > while it makes sense has never been in the kernel. Either way I don't 
> > disagree with your reasoning but most things that change behaviour should go 
> > through -mm. The first as I said was the behaviour in mainline for some time 
> > till my silly requeue change.
> 
> Ok, we're basically in agreement on these changes, it's just a matter of
> when.  As maintainer, Ingo has to weigh the benefit, danger, etc etc.

Do you know which of those changes fixes the "ls" problem?

Lee

-
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/