Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S130670AbQLKXDG>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:03:06 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S130686AbQLKXC4>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:02:56 -0500
Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:24848 "EHLO
	the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S130670AbQLKXCk>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:02:40 -0500
Subject: Re: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12
To: gmack@innerfire.net (Gerhard Mack)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:06:54 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel),
        vii@penguinpowered.com (John Fremlin), scole@lanl.gov,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012111357430.21909-100000@innerfire.net> from "Gerhard Mack" at Dec 11, 2000 02:03:46 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E145b60-00007M-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> How much of that is due to the fact that the 2.4.0 scheduler interrupts
> processes more often than 2.2.x?  Is the better interactivity worth the
> slight drop in performance?

What better interactivity ;)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/