On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:34 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 31 March 2007 19:28, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
> > For long time now I use windows to work
> > problems. I cannot play wine games with audio, I
> > cannot sample video, I cannot use skype, I cannot play
> > midi. And even linux
On Saturday 31 March 2007 19:28, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
> For long time now I use windows to work
> problems. I cannot play wine games with audio, I
> cannot sample video, I cannot use skype, I cannot play
> midi. And even linux only things I try do I cannot
> share my X, I cannot use more than
On Thursday 29 March 2007 21:22, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [ A quick guess: could SD's substandard interactivity in this test be
> due to the SMP migration logic inconsistencies Mike noticed? This is
> an SMP system and the hackbench workload is very scheduling intense
> and tasks are frequently
On Thursday 29 March 2007 21:22, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[ A quick guess: could SD's substandard interactivity in this test be
due to the SMP migration logic inconsistencies Mike noticed? This is
an SMP system and the hackbench workload is very scheduling intense
and tasks are frequently
On Saturday 31 March 2007 19:28, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
For long time now I use windows to work
problems. I cannot play wine games with audio, I
cannot sample video, I cannot use skype, I cannot play
midi. And even linux only things I try do I cannot
share my X, I cannot use more than one
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 12:34 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Saturday 31 March 2007 19:28, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
For long time now I use windows to work
problems. I cannot play wine games with audio, I
cannot sample video, I cannot use skype, I cannot play
midi. And even linux only things
Xenofon,
could you tell us a bit more about the specs of your system? What CPU
speed for example? (i suspect it's a single-CPU box, right?)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info
* Xenofon Antidides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I cannot play wine games with audio, I cannot sample video, I
> cannot use skype, I cannot play midi. And even linux only things I try
> do I cannot share my X, I cannot use more than one vmware. [...]
strange - i can do such things (and
--- Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:41 -0700, Xenofon Antidides
> wrote:
>
> > Patch makes X yuck with any load. I stick with SD.
>
> Shrug. My milage is different, but hey, it's a work
> in progress. If SD
> ever gets to the point that it actually
--- Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:41 -0700, Xenofon Antidides
wrote:
Patch makes X yuck with any load. I stick with SD.
Shrug. My milage is different, but hey, it's a work
in progress. If SD
ever gets to the point that it actually delivers
what it
* Xenofon Antidides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I cannot play wine games with audio, I cannot sample video, I
cannot use skype, I cannot play midi. And even linux only things I try
do I cannot share my X, I cannot use more than one vmware. [...]
strange - i can do such things (and other
Xenofon,
could you tell us a bit more about the specs of your system? What CPU
speed for example? (i suspect it's a single-CPU box, right?)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 08:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:41 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
>
> > Patch makes X yuck with any load. I stick with SD.
General comment directed at nobody in particular:
If anyone thinks the current scheduler sucks rocks, maybe they should
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:41 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
> Patch makes X yuck with any load. I stick with SD.
Shrug. My milage is different, but hey, it's a work in progress. If SD
ever gets to the point that it actually delivers what it claims, I may
join you.
In the meantime, IMHO
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 05:42 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Yesterday, I piddled around with tracking interactive backlog as a way
> to detect when the load isn't really an interactive load, that's very
> simple and has potential.
Kinda like the patch below (though it can all be done slow path),
--- Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:36 -0700, Xenofon Antidides
> wrote:
>
> > Something different on many cpus? Sorry I was
> thinking
> > something other. I try 50% run + 50% sleep on one
> cpu
> > and mainline has big problem. Sorry for bad code I
> >
ject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix
wedge now.
[...]
and the numbers he posted:
http://marc.info/?l=
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 05:23 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:36 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
>
> > Something different on many cpus? Sorry I was thinking
> > something other. I try 50% run + 50% sleep on one cpu
> > and mainline has big problem. Sorry for bad code I
> >
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:36 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
> Something different on many cpus? Sorry I was thinking
> something other. I try 50% run + 50% sleep on one cpu
> and mainline has big problem. Sorry for bad code I
> copy bits to make it work. Start program first then
> run bash 100%
list ;
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike
> Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
> > Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results:
> vanilla versus SD/RSDL
> >
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED
;
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
> Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL
>
>
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
- Original Message
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: linux list ; Andrew Morton <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>; Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity
results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix
wedge now.
[...]
and the numbers he posted:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=117448900626028w=2
We been
29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix
wedge now.
[...]
and the numbers he
Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:22:49 PM
Subject: [test] hackbench.c interactivity results:
vanilla versus SD/RSDL
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the
thin
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:36 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
Something different on many cpus? Sorry I was thinking
something other. I try 50% run + 50% sleep on one cpu
and mainline has big problem. Sorry for bad code I
copy bits to make it work. Start program first then
run bash 100% cpu
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 05:23 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:36 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
Something different on many cpus? Sorry I was thinking
something other. I try 50% run + 50% sleep on one cpu
and mainline has big problem. Sorry for bad code I
copy bits
] hackbench.c interactivity results: vanilla versus SD/RSDL
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix
wedge now.
[...]
and the numbers he posted:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm
--- Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:36 -0700, Xenofon Antidides
wrote:
Something different on many cpus? Sorry I was
thinking
something other. I try 50% run + 50% sleep on one
cpu
and mainline has big problem. Sorry for bad code I
copy bits to make
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 05:42 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Yesterday, I piddled around with tracking interactive backlog as a way
to detect when the load isn't really an interactive load, that's very
simple and has potential.
Kinda like the patch below (though it can all be done slow path), or
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:41 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
Patch makes X yuck with any load. I stick with SD.
Shrug. My milage is different, but hey, it's a work in progress. If SD
ever gets to the point that it actually delivers what it claims, I may
join you.
In the meantime, IMHO
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 08:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:41 -0700, Xenofon Antidides wrote:
Patch makes X yuck with any load. I stick with SD.
General comment directed at nobody in particular:
If anyone thinks the current scheduler sucks rocks, maybe they should
try
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix
> > wedge now.
[...]
> and the numbers he posted:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=117448900626028=2
>
> his test conclusion was
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic that we're at the thin edge of the bugfix
wedge now.
[...]
and the numbers he posted:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=117448900626028w=2
his test conclusion was that under
34 matches
Mail list logo
