Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:36:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:36:12 -0500 Received: from flrtn-4-m1-156.vnnyca.adelphia.net ([24.55.69.156]:33928 "EHLO jyro.mirai.cx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:35:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3C41E17A.4010909@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:35:22 -0800 From: J Sloan Organization: J S Concepts User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Love CC: jogi@planetzork.ping.de, Andrew Morton , Ed Sweetman , Andrea Arcangeli , yodaiken@fsmlabs.com, Alan Cox , nigel@nrg.org, Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable In-Reply-To: <1010781207.819.27.camel@phantasy> <20020112121315.B1482@inspiron.school.suse.de> <20020112160714.A10847@planetzork.spacenet> <20020112095209.A5735@hq.fsmlabs.com> <20020112180016.T1482@inspiron.school.suse.de> <005301c19b9b$6acc61e0$0501a8c0@psuedogod> <3C409B2D.DB95D659@zip.com.au> <20020113184249.A15955@planetzork.spacenet> <1010946178.11848.14.camel@phantasy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The problem here is that when people report that the low latency patch works better for them than the preempt patch, they aren't talking about bebnchmarking the time to compile a kernel, they are talking about interactive feel and smoothness. You're speaking to a peripheral issue. I've no agenda other than wanting to see linux as an attractive option for the multimedia and gaming crowds - and in my experience, the low latency patches simply give a much smoother feel and a more pleasant experience. Kernel compilation time is the farthest thing from my mind when e.g. playing Q3A! I'd be happy to check out the preempt patch again and see if anything's changed, if the problem of tux+preempt oopsing has been dealt with - Regards, jjs Robert Love wrote: >On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 12:42, jogi@planetzork.ping.de wrote: > >> 13-pre5aa1 18-pre2aa2 18-pre3 18-pre3s 18-pre3sp 18-pre3minill >>j100: 6:59.79 78% 7:07.62 76% * 6:39.55 81% 6:24.79 83% * >>j100: 7:03.39 77% 8:10.04 66% * 8:07.13 66% 6:21.23 83% * >>j100: 6:40.40 81% 7:43.15 70% * 6:37.46 81% 6:03.68 87% * >>j100: 7:45.12 70% 7:11.59 75% * 7:14.46 74% 6:06.98 87% * >>j100: 6:56.71 79% 7:36.12 71% * 6:26.59 83% 6:11.30 86% * >> >>j75: 6:22.33 85% 6:42.50 81% 6:48.83 80% 6:01.61 89% 5:42.66 93% 7:07.56 77% >>j75: 6:41.47 81% 7:19.79 74% 6:49.43 79% 5:59.82 89% 6:00.83 88% 7:17.15 74% >>j75: 6:10.32 88% 6:44.98 80% 7:01.01 77% 6:02.99 88% 5:48.00 91% 6:47.48 80% >>j75: 6:28.55 84% 6:44.21 80% 9:33.78 57% 6:19.83 85% 5:49.07 91% 6:34.02 83% >>j75: 6:17.15 86% 6:46.58 80% 7:24.52 73% 6:23.50 84% 5:58.06 88% 7:01.39 77% >> > >Again, preempt seems to reign supreme. Where is all the information >correlating preempt is inferior? To be fair, however, we should bench a >mini-ll+s test. > >But I stand by my original point that none of this matters all too >much. A preemptive kernel will allow for future latency reduction >_without_ using explicit scheduling points everywhere there is a >problem. This means we can tackle the problem and not provide a million >bandaids. > > Robert Love > >- >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/ > - 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/