Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757058AbXKTW7b (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:59:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757736AbXKTW7N (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:59:13 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:45574 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757614AbXKTW7L (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:59:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:08 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Matthew Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7 Message-ID: <20071120225908.GC24380@elte.hu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1447 Lines: 33 * Matthew wrote: > > are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22: > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/ > > > or have they been forward ported? (if yes, do you have an URL for that) > > > (my guess is you used the 2.6.23.1 scheduler (CFS), so the improvement > > you felt on the laptop is relative to 2.6.23-vanilla in essence - which > > is good news.) > > waninkoko over at forums.gentoo.org tries to forward port ck-patchset > as long as he can, as you can see > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-577970.html > (see later kamikaze-sources / zen-sources / klight-sources for more info) > ck-patchset & cfs has been an excellent combination so far ... ok, it's great that people are picking up -ck. What i was trying to figure out here was whether this is a vanilla-O(1)->CFS, SD->CFS or CFS.23->CFS.24 comparison. It seems it's probably a CFS.23->CFS.24 comparison. I'd also be interested in those people's impressions about CFSv24 who previously found SD to be superior to earlier CFS versions. If there's still any regression (interactivity or other) we might still be able to fix it before 2.6.24 is released. Ingo - 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/