Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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 ;)
Indeed!
On my dual Celeron workstation, 2.4 looks to me as if it is scheduling
"more". Thus when I move a window, the window takes on all intervening
positions. Under 2.2, the window sometimes jerks 10 pixels or so, but
it acutally follows the mouse. Under 2.4, you can get hte window to
lag the mouse by a significant amount.
Thus to me, 2.4 FEELS much less interactive. When I move windows they
don't follow the mouse in real-time.
Roger.
-- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:26 EST