Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernelversion

[Alejandro Bonilla]

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
>  
>
> > Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
> > scheduler related interactivity regressions.
> >    
>
> I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are
> scheduler-related. They all tend to be disk IO issues (bad scheduling or
> just plain bad drivers), and then sometimes just VM misbehaviour.
>
> People are looking at all these RT patches, when the thing is that most
> nobody will ever be able to tell the difference between 10us and 1ms
> latencies unless it causes a skip in audio.
>  
True, and I just couldn't agree more with Lee that lots of the delays 
that one looks at is because of user space. Still, I have some doubt on 
how faster 2.6 is sometimes, where 2.4 is faster in other things.

i.e. As my newbie view, I can see 2.6 running faster in X, Compiling and 
stuff, but I see 2.4 working much faster when running commands, response 
and interaction in the console. But then again, this could be only me...


> 		Linus
>
>  
.Alejandro
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/