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

[Peter Wächtler]

[e-mail] schrieb:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:32:57PM -0500, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > > So your claim is that:
> > >         Preemption improves latency when there are both kernel cpu bound
> > >         tasks and tasks that are I/O bound with very low cache hit
> > >         rates?
> > >
> > > Is that it?
> > >
> > > Can you give me an example of a CPU bound task that runs
> > > mostly in kernel? Doesn't that seem like a kernel bug?
> >
> > cat /dev/urandom > /dev/null
> 
> Don't see any of Daniel's postulated long latencies there.  (Sorry, but
> I'm having a hard time figuring out what is meant as a serious comment
> here).
> 

This does not count for a "general" kernel:

zisofs reading
e2compr

I will try to compare with preemption kernel patch for out webbox like
device - but there I am mostly interested in "GUI feeling" - and will we
use e2compr on a 2.4.9ac kernel.