> Ed Sweetman wrote:
> > If you want to test the preempt kernel you're going to need something that
> > can find the mean latancy or "time to action" for a particular program or
> > all programs being run at the time and then run multiple programs that you
> > would find on various peoples' systems. That is the "feel" people talk
> > about when they praise the preempt patch.
> Right. And that is precisely why I created the "mini-ll" patch. To
> give the improved "feel" in a way which is acceptable for merging into
> the 2.4 kernel.
Hm, I am not quite sure about what you expect to hear about it, but:
a) It applies cleanly to 2.4.18-pre3.
b) It compiles
c) During a load of around 150 produced by (of course :-) "make -j bzImage" and
concurrent XMMS playing while my mail-client and mozilla are open, I cannot
"feel" a real big difference in interactivity compared to vanilla kernel. XMMS
hickups sometimes, mouse does kangaroo'ing, switching around different
X-screens and screen refresh (especially mozilla of course) are no big hit.
This is a dual PIII-1GHz/2 GB RAM and some swap. During make no swapping is
Sorry, but I cannot see (feel) the difference in _this_ test (if this is really
a test for what you intend to do). Compile time btw makes no difference either.
Perhaps this try is rather something for ingo and the scheduler...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/