[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=8m4g01wZPacySoF7U0PevTNVgJoZZrHiUD-pN@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:51:38 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] check_preempt_tick should not compare vruntime with
wall time
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, Xorg and firefox feel _much more_ responsive with the fix I propose when
> running with a make -j10. The system is even usable with a make -j20 on my UP
> machine, even though I can start feeling a some lag. This is probably a more
> important, yet less scientific, result.
I'll test that myself (but in a bit - I need to go do voter
registration and socsec update first, though - I became a US citizen
last week).
Because yes, that's the reason I'm personally interested in your
scheduler latency work: I think our X behavior under load is pitiful
(I do "make -j16" on my dual-core with HT Core i5, and web browsong
shouldn't start to lag as much as it does just because I overcommit
the CPU a bit). So if this makes a noticeable difference, I think it's
very important.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists