[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A9F3DA.2090203@imap.cc>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:32:10 +0200
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Andika Triwidada <andika@...il.com>,
Robert Deaton <false.hopes@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, B.Steinbrink@....de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: updatedb
Rene Herman schrieb:
> On 07/27/2007 01:48 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>> I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
>> though, so suspect that's not the case.
>
> Stopping the bush-circumference beating, I do not. -ck (and gentoo) have
> this massive Calimero thing going among their users where people are much
> less interested in technology than in how the nasty big kernel meanies are
> keeping them down (*).
I think the problem is elsewhere. Users don't say: "My apps get paged
back in." They say: "My system is more responsive". They really don't
care *why* the reaction to a mouse click that takes three seconds with
a mainline kernel is instantaneous with -ck. Nasty big kernel meanies,
OTOH, want to understand *why* a patch helps in order to decide whether
it is really a good idea to merge it. So you've got a bunch of patches
(aka -ck) which visibly improve the overall responsiveness of a desktop
system, but apparently no one can conclusively explain why or how they
achieve that, and therefore they cannot be merged into mainline.
I don't have a solution to that dilemma either.
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (251 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists