On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> What's the issue? The most popular trees have been using it without
> issue for six months or so, and I know of no cases of bad behaviour.
> [...]
well, the patch is barely 6 months old. A new scheduler changes the
'heart' of the kernel and something like that should not be done for the
stable branch, especially since it has finally started to converge towards
a state that can be called stable ...
> [...] I know there are people who don't believe in the preempt patch,
> but the new scheduler seems to work better under both desktop and server
> load.
well, the preempt patch is rather for RT-type workloads where milliseconds
matter, which improvements are not a matter of belief, but a matter of
hard latencies. Mere mortals should hardly notice its effects under normal
loads - perhaps a bit more 'snappiness'. But such effects do accumulate
up, and people are seeing visible improvements with combo-patches of
lowlat-lockbreak+preempt+O(1).
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:08 EST