Re: [patch/backport] CFS scheduler, -v24, for v2.6.24-rc3, v2.6.23.8, v2.6.22.13, v2.6.21.7

["Fabio Comolli" <fabio.comolli@gmail.com>]

Hi

On Nov 20, 2007 10:53 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
<snip>
> > >
> > > curious: what scheduler/kernel version have you used before?
> >
> > I was using 2.6.23.1 with ck patches.
>
> are you sure? The last -ck patch i can find is for .22:
>
>   http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/ck/patches/2.6/
>
> or have they been forward ported? (if yes, do you have an URL for that)
>
> (my guess is you used the 2.6.23.1 scheduler (CFS), so the improvement
> you felt on the laptop is relative to 2.6.23-vanilla in essence - which
> is good news.)

Well, it seems that Matthew has been faster than me :-) Yes, I got -ck
patches from kamikaze sources.

>
> > > > Just a question: does the patch include the fix (divide by
> > > > zero....) you just posted in the stable review for 2.6.23.9?
> > >
> > > yeah.
> >
> > OK, thanks. Have you already tried to apply the patch to 2.6.23.9?
> > Shall we expect some other rejects?
>
> hm:
>
> The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is:           2.6.23.8
>
> so there's no 23.9 yet.
>
>         Ingo
>

I meant the 23.9 patches that Greg KH posted some hours ago for
review. I guess I will find myself in a couple of days.

To answer your latest mail, again I don't have numbers but from my
point ov view:

23.1 < 23.1+ck < 23.8+cfs.24

where 23.1+ck is slightly better than vanilla 23.1 and 23.8+cfs.24 is
much better than 23.1+ck.

My workload is pretty standard, F8+kde+firefox+kmail+amsn, some kernel
compile and so on.

Regards,
Fabio