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 reports where in your opinion CFS behaves worse > than vanilla?
see below :-) > There were two audio skipping reports against CFS, the > most serious one got resolved and i hope the other one has been resolved > by the same fix as well. (i'm still waiting for feedback on that one) your answer to your question above ;-) Yes, we're all waiting for feedback. And I said I did not track the versions involved, so it is possible that all previously encountered regressions are fixed by now. > > [...] 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 encountered a problem that nobody could reproduce. It may come from hardware, scheduler design, scheduler bug, or any other bug, but whatever the cause, it would be interesting to conclude on it. > Ingo Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
