On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:45:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Marcelo, > > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:41:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > There need to be some unique features in 2.6.X to force people > > > to upgrade, I guess... > > > > Faster, cleaner, way more elegant, handles intense loads more gracefully, > > When a CPU-hungry task freezes another one for more than 13 seconds, I cannot > agree with your last statement, and that's why I still don't upgrade. I have > already posted examples of worst case scenarios, but I now start to have a > more meaningful example to show so that people working on the scheduler may > have something clearer to work with. I also did not have time to retest -ck > or staircase recently, but I will do for completeness.
v2.6 scheduler regressions cannot be tolerated. Please prepare more detailed data about your problem - I'm sure Ingo and friends will appreciate it. > > handles highmem decently, LSM/SELinux, etc, etc... > > > > IMO everyone should upgrade whenever appropriate. > > I still know about a tens of 2.2 still running around at customers ;-) > However, if it had not been for lazyness, they should have upgraded. :) - 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/
