Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

[J Sloan]

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, [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>