mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rene Rebe <rene.rebe@gmx.net>
To: mingo@elte.hu
Cc: zdenek@smetana.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:56:53 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020124.115653.730556705.rene.rebe@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201241255240.7900-100000@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20020124.105517.730550260.rene.rebe@gmx.net> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201241255240.7900-100000@localhost.localdomain>

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: Missing changelog to Ingo's J5 scheduler?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:56:09 +0100 (CET)

> 
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Rene Rebe wrote:
> 
> > Yes. -J5 is even better here. With -J4 moving windows arround or doing
> > other GUI intensive stuff was interactive for a short time (1-2
> > seconds?) - and then the programm lost all interactivity (with some
> > unniced gcc in the background ...). With -J5 all applications keep
> > smoth even with two rebuilds (unniced) of a distribution running!
> 
> could you also compare -J5 to -J2? [use the 2.4 patch, or vanilla
> 2.5.3-pre4 which has J2.]

Ok. After some massive rebooting:

-J2 is worser. starting XFree(+gnome) when three gcc's are running
take long (> half a minute?). With -J5 X start nearly normal (mostly
file access time anyway?) Dragging windows arround is nearly
equal. Although with -J2 i sometimes noticed a really big latency when
starting vim or man ...

Oh. btw. The -J5 was tested with 2.4.18-pre7; the rest was with
vanilla-2.4.17 - I hope this doesn't make a performance difference for
this tests ...

> 	Ingo

k33p h4ck1n6
  René

-- 
René Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)

eMail:    rene.rebe@gmx.net
          rene@rocklinux.org

Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

  reply	other threads:[~2002-01-24 10:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-01-23 12:52 Zdenek Smetana
2002-01-23 22:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-24 14:45   ` piotr
2002-01-24  9:55 ` Rene Rebe
2002-01-24 10:56   ` Rene Rebe [this message]
2002-01-24 13:02     ` Ingo Molnar
2002-01-24 11:56   ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20020124.115653.730556705.rene.rebe@gmx.net \
    --to=rene.rebe@gmx.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=zdenek@smetana.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®