On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 23:11, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > 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
Maybe I'm a lame slashdotter then. :) In my experience it enhances interactivity considerably. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
