On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:55:15AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> People seem to be confusing scheduler policy with a modular framework.
> First of all, I don't know that any of the schedulers can "just go in"
> and replace the mainline one, because they are still under development
> and have not been
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 03:37:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 05:55 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > You'll also hit the same holes should you attempt to write such a
> > modularity patch for mainline as opposed to porting current mainline to
> > the driver API as-
On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 22:17 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch makes things much worse, [...]
>
> yeah, the small patch i sent to you in private mail was indeed buggy,
> please disregard it.
It also hardlocked my box :) but it was worth a sho
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch makes things much worse, [...]
yeah, the small patch i sent to you in private mail was indeed buggy,
please disregard it.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Sunday 29 April 2007 19:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hi Kasper,
>
> i found an aspect of CFS that could cause the kind of 'stuttering' you
> described in such detail. I'm wondering whether you could try the
> attached -v8-rc1 patch ontop of the -v7 CFS patch - does it improve the
> 'games FPS' situa
Willy Tarreau wrote:
..
Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as
a first step with a low risk of regression, and CFS as an ultimate
solution relying on a more solid framework.
I see SD as 100% chance of regression on my main machine.
But I will retest (on Monday?
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:42 -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > well, there are several reports of CFS being significantly better than
> > > SD on a number of workloads - and i know of only tw
On 4/29/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> well, there are several reports of CFS being significantly better than
> SD on a number of workloads - and i know of only two reports where SD
> was reported to be better than CFS: in Ka
On Sunday 29 April 2007, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
[...]
>> > > CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the
>> > > kernel in interesting ways.
Huh? Doesn't grok.
>> > Hmmm I guess you confused both of them this time. CFS touches many
>> > places, which is why I think the
On Sunday 29 April 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:59:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now
>> > several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 05:55 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> You'll also hit the same holes should you attempt to write such a
> modularity patch for mainline as opposed to porting current mainline to
> the driver API as-given. It takes a bit more work to get something that
> actually works fo
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:13:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> SD is a one to one replacement of the existing scheduler guts - with a
> different behaviour.
> CFS is a huge step into a modular and hierarchical scheduler design,
> which allows more than just implementing a clever scheduler for a
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 01:59:13PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> > > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
> >
> > Contrarily t
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:13 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > > Contrarily to most people, I don't see
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:00 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as
> > a first step with a low risk of
On 4/29/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 29 April 2007 21:11, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Willy,
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is som
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as
> a first step with a low risk of regression, and CFS as an ultimate
> solution relying on a more sol
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 13:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
>
> Contrarily to most people, I don't see them as competitors. I see SD as
> a first step
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 20:53 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2007 20:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
> > CFS modifies the scheduler and not
On Sunday 29 April 2007 21:11, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Willy,
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for
> > > everybody and with *no* regre
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 12:48 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 12:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Willy,
>
> > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
> > CFS modifies
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Willy,
>
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody
> > and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling
> > that SD
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:53:36PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2007 20:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> > CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
> > CFS modifies the scheduler
On Sunday 29 April 2007 20:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
> CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the
> kernel in interesting way
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 12:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Willy,
> As a sidenote: I really wonder if anybody noticed yet, that the whole
> CFS / SD comparison is so ridiculous, that it is not even funny anymore.
> CFS modifies the scheduler and nothing else, SD fiddles all over the
> kernel in i
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:30:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Can we please stop this useless pissing contest and sit down and get a
> modular design into mainline, which allows folks to work and integrate
> their "workload X perfect scheduler" and gives us the flexibility to
> adjust to the n
Willy,
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody
> and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling
> that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has not tested
> recent vers
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 19:52 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> > > >
> > > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either.
On Sunday 29 April 2007 18:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> > >
> > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it
> > > might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:54:36AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Common code for rbtree-based priority queues can be factored out of
>> cfq, cfs, and hrtimers.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:13:17AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> In my experience, rbtrees are painfully slow. Yesterday, I spent
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it'd be a good idea to merge scheduler classes before changing
>> over the policy so future changes to policy have smaller code impact.
>> Basically, get scheduler classes going with the mainline scheduler.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:54:36AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:16:27AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody
> > and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling
> > that SD
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody
> and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling
> that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has not tested
> recent versions. D
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have some ideas on how these problems might be fixed i'd surely
> try fixes and stuff, or if you have some data you need me to collect
> to better understand whats going on. But i suspect any somewhat
> demanding 3d application will do, and
* William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it'd be a good idea to merge scheduler classes before changing
> over the policy so future changes to policy have smaller code impact.
> Basically, get scheduler classes going with the mainline scheduler.
i've got a split up patch fo
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:00:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> > >
> > > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it
> > > might be a good idea for Mike t
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> >
> > actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it
> > might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?
>
> In any case, it might be a good idea because Mike e
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now
> > several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on
> > real work. In my experience, CFS seems smoother
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:16:27AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for everybody
> and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. I had the feeling
> that SD matched that goal right now, except for Mike who has not tested
> recent versi
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for
> > everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect.
> >
> > I had the feeling that SD matched that goal right now, [...]
>
> curious, which are the report
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > know of any other reports then please let me know!)
>
> There was Caglar Onur too but he said he will redo all the tests.
> [...]
well, Caglar said CFSv7 works as well as CFSv6 in his latest tests and
that he'll redo all the tests to re-verify hi
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:59:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now
> > several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on
> > real work. In my experience, CFS seem
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now
> several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on
> real work. In my experience, CFS seems smoother on *technical* tests,
> which I agree that they do not really
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay so i've tried with cfs 7 now, and the completely broken audio
> behavior is fixed.
great! :) This worried me alot!
> Im not sure im describing properly, but say it takes 35fps for the 3d
> stuff to seem perfect, the fps monitor updates once
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 07:30 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD...
I'm neither testing recent SD releases nor looking at the source. All
the testing I did was a waste of my time and lkml bandwidth.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 03:18:32AM +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> Okay so i've tried with cfs 7 now, and the completely broken audio
> behavior is fixed.
>
> The only things i really notice now is that gtk apps seems to redraw
> somewhat slower, and renicing X doesent seem to be able to brin
Okay so i've tried with cfs 7 now, and the completely broken audio
behavior is fixed.
The only things i really notice now is that gtk apps seems to redraw
somewhat slower, and renicing X doesent seem to be able to bring it on
par with SD or vanilla.
And smoothness just doesent match SD, it may be
On 4/28/07, Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tried looking for buffer stuff in /proc/asound, couldnt find anything,
im using the via82xx driver.
Use fuser to see which sound device is used:
$ fuser /dev/snd/*
/dev/snd/controlC0: 14028
/dev/snd/pcmC0D0c: 14028m
/dev/snd/pcmC0D0p:
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 13:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > update for lkml readers: this is some really 'catastrophic' condition
> > triggering on your box. Here ogg123 just never skips on an older 750
> > MHz box, which is 4-5 times slower than your 2
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > yeah, indeed. Would you like to do a patch for that?
>
> My pleasure :)
thanks! I've applied your patch to my tree and it will be in -v7 which
i'll release in a few minutes.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 08:53:27PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> With the patch below applied, I ran a "time -p make -s -j10 bzImage"
> test.
On a 4CPU (accounting HT) Intel Xeon 3.6GHz box
>
> 2.6.20 + cfs-v6 -> 186.45 (real)
> 2.6.20 + cfs-v6 + this_patch -> 184.55
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 03:53:38PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Won't it help if you update rq->rb_leftmost above from the value
> > returned by rb_first(), so that subsequent calls to first_fair will be
> > sped up?
>
> yeah, indeed. Would you like to do a patch for that?
My pleasure :)
With
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded
> > from the usual place:
> >
> > http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/
>
> +static inline struct rb
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded
> from the usual place:
>
> http://redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/
+static inline struct rb_node * first_fair(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ if (rq->rb_leftmost
Hi.
Just wanted to chime and and say that my build of 2.6.21 + CFS-v6 + PI
patch by Thomas Gleixner has been running exceptionally well on my
single processor PII machine (Debian unstable) and my SMP PII machine
(Fedora Rawhide). On both systems no automatic 'renice'-ing happens,
and I've not noti
On 4/27/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ogg123 never skips. Then i cranked up the load to 50 infinite loops (!).
No problems whatsoever. No problems at 100 tasks either. No problems
with 250 (!) nice-0 infinite loops running either:
Different soundcards support different ranges and d
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 27 April 2007 10:39, Gene Heskett wrote:
Not necessarily Con. Do you have a fresh one for 2.6.21?
Since people get nervous about any rejects here is an (otherwise identical)
patch for 2.6.21
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-sd-0.46.patch
* Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You've really outdone yourself this time!
> >
> > 2.6.21 + CFS-v6, plus the futex PI fix patch posted later, just
> > absolutely rocks here!
> >
> > I'm having a very difficult time finding any fault with it,
> > and it has now displaced the stock sched
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 15:39 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> ogg123 local harddisk skips
> ogg123 nfsworks
> ogg123 /dev/shm works
>
> The skips when running from the local harddisk are definitely caused by
> the I/O scheduler or some other bottleneck in the block/disk/scs
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kasper, just to exclude the possibility that this is somehow related
> > to IO scheduling, could you copy the OGG file over to /dev/shm and
> > play it from there? Do you still get the bad skips?
>
> That's what I can observe here:
>
> ogg123 l
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 13:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > update for lkml readers: this is some really 'catastrophic' condition
> > triggering on your box. Here ogg123 just never skips on an older 750
> > MHz box, which is 4-5 times slower than your 2
Mark Lord wrote:
Ingo,
You've really outdone yourself this time!
2.6.21 + CFS-v6, plus the futex PI fix patch posted later,
just absolutely rocks here!
I'm having a very difficult time finding any fault with it,
and it has now displaced the stock scheduler as my default
and personal favourite.
Ingo,
You've really outdone yourself this time!
2.6.21 + CFS-v6, plus the futex PI fix patch posted later,
just absolutely rocks here!
I'm having a very difficult time finding any fault with it,
and it has now displaced the stock scheduler as my default
and personal favourite.
The KDE (Dapper
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for
> > > desktop users like me.
> >
> > Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without
> > anything reniced (X is 0), just pressing a link in konqueror can
> > make au
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 01:53:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'll try to figure out what is happening on your box. I asked for your
> .config off-list (which you already sent me) and i'll try to reproduce
> your problems. One thing i noticed: when ogg123 plays with 'esd' also
> running on the
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> update for lkml readers: this is some really 'catastrophic' condition
> triggering on your box. Here ogg123 just never skips on an older 750
> MHz box, which is 4-5 times slower than your 2GHz box - while i have
> _fourty nice-0 infinite loops_ runnin
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for
> > desktop users like me.
>
> Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without
> anything reniced (X is 0), just pressing a link in konqueror can make
> audio skip
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 06:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:09 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop
> > > users
> > > like me.
> >
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:09 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> >
> > Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop
> > users
> > like me.
>
> Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without
> any
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Friday 27 April 2007 10:39, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Not necessarily Con. Do you have a fresh one for 2.6.21?
>
>Since people get nervous about any rejects here is an (otherwise identical)
>patch for 2.6.21
>
>http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-
On Friday 27 April 2007 10:39, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Not necessarily Con. Do you have a fresh one for 2.6.21?
Since people get nervous about any rejects here is an (otherwise identical)
patch for 2.6.21
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/staircase-deadline/2.6.21-sd-0.46.patch
--
-ck
-
To unsubscr
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Con Kolivas wrote:
>On Friday 27 April 2007 00:41, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 April 2007, Redeeman wrote:
>> >On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
>> >> than
On Friday 27 April 2007 00:41, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 26 April 2007, Redeeman wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
> >> than welcome,
> >
> >well, from my experiences with cfs on
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
>
>> Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop
>> users like me.
>
>Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without
>anything reniced (X is 0),
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thanks, applied! :-) (Did you manage to test whether PI works?)
>
> Yup, all tests of the kernel tester scripts work as well as the glibc
> tests.
great! I think this fix was the last one needed to make CFS fully
compatible with the vanilla sch
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 10:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Compared to mainline? I still think this is a 100% keeper for desktop users
> like me.
Here its alot worse, just playing an ogg with ogg123 even without
anything reniced (X is 0), just pressing a link in konqueror can make
audio skip (
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 21:35 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > i got lots of -v5 feedback (thanks and please keep the reports coming!)
> >
> > You asked for it :)
> >
> > CFS breaks the PI su
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > i got lots of -v5 feedback (thanks and please keep the reports coming!)
>
> You asked for it :)
>
> CFS breaks the PI support for futexes. Fix below.
thanks, applied! :-) (Did you manage t
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i got lots of -v5 feedback (thanks and please keep the reports coming!)
You asked for it :)
CFS breaks the PI support for futexes. Fix below.
tglx
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 16:06 +0200, Redeeman wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
> > than welcome,
>
> well, from my experiences with cfs on workstation/desktop, on amd64
> 2ghz, cfs doesent mea
On Thursday 26 April 2007, Redeeman wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
>> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
>> than welcome,
>
>well, from my experiences with cfs on workstation/desktop, on amd64
>2ghz, cfs doesent measure up to SD
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> As usual, any sort of feedback, bugreport, fix and suggestion is more
> than welcome,
well, from my experiences with cfs on workstation/desktop, on amd64
2ghz, cfs doesent measure up to SD at all.
audio skips easily, with or without renice
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The
> main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as
> well as technically possible.
>
> The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be
> downloa
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - upstream fix: SysRq-T should show runnable tasks
>
> BTW. can you send this upstream? It is very annoying how it currently
> works, and I've had more than one bug that required seeing runnable
> tasks in order to diagnose and fix...
yeah, sent i
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> - upstream fix: SysRq-T should show runnable tasks
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 05:29:27AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> BTW. can you send this upstream? It is very annoying how it currently works,
> and I've had more than one bug that requ
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:29:27 +0200 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - upstream fix: SysRq-T should show runnable tasks
>
> BTW. can you send this upstream? It is very annoying how it currently works,
> and I've had more than one bug that required seeing runnable tasks in order
> to dia
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:47:04PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The
> main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as
> well as technically possible.
>
> The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.2
On Wednesday 25 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The
>main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as
>well as technically possible.
>
>The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded
>f
i'm pleased to announce release -v6 of the CFS scheduler patchset. The
main goal of CFS is to implement "high quality desktop scheduling" as
well as technically possible.
The CFS patch against v2.6.21-rc7 or against v2.6.20.7 can be downloaded
from the usual place:
http://redhat.com/~ming
89 matches
Mail list logo
