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

[Dieter =?ISO-8859-15?q?N=FCtzel?=]

> 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.

Yes, but I did latency testing for Robert for several months, now.

> I've no agenda other than wanting to see linux
> as an attractive option for the multimedia and
> gaming crowds

I am, too. But more for 3D visualization/simulation (with audio).

> - and in my experience, the low
> latency patches simply give a much smoother
> feel and a more pleasant experience.

Not for me. Even when lock-brake is applied.

> Kernel
> compilation time is the farthest thing from my
> mind when e.g. playing Q3A!

Q3A is _NOT_ changed in any case. Even some smoother system "feeling" with 
Q3A and UT 436 running in parallel on an UP 1 GHz Athlon II, 640 MB. Have you 
seen something on any Win box?

> 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 -

You told me that TUX show some problems with preempt before.
What problems? Are they TUX specific?

Some latency numbers coming soon.

-Dieter

-- 
Dieter Nützel
Graduate Student, Computer Science

University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: [e-mail]