> Weird. Maybe this (rather synthetic BTW - it doesn't feel slow doing > 'real' work, does it?) test tickles very bad behaviour in something > which has changed radically in the 2.6 kernel, the scheduler maybe? > CONFIG_PREEMPT might make a difference, pity it causes crashes and all > around weird behaviour about as soon as RAM is fully used.
I doubt that even a working CONFIG_PREEMPT would make any good difference. Kernel preemption is just a crappy feature to please lame slashdotters Ben.
