This discussion has me wondering. Why am I reading the newer kernels getting dissed? From what I read not too long ago the scheduler in the older kernels wasn't that great, and the new scheduler is much better. Is this not true?
I'm not picking a fight here, I'm genuinely curious. Drek Gary Stanley wrote: > At 09:05 PM 9/5/2009, Eric Greer wrote: > >> This is all really awesome information everyone and I am very appreciative >> of all your ime and knowledge... however... >> >> What does this mean to the guy who hasn't recompiled a linux kenel before? >> Right now I'm seting fps_max on the command line to 500. Can I get more than >> 500 fps without recompiling? What settings would that require? >> >> If I do have to recompile, where do I start learning for that? How >> dangerous is it? >> >> Thanks again everyone, >> >> Eric >> > > The stock centos kernels do not have hrtimers, so you aren't able to > get low latency sleeping. The 2.6.18 kernels are very good latency > wise, so unless you want to patch them in you're going > to have to build something newer. The newer kernels with CFS are > pretty much crap, in my opinion, due to the scheduler changes and > other .. things, but mostly you will need HPET support in the BIOS > enabled with hrtimers. > > As Laws stated eariler, the older kernels are generally better > overall, and newer kernels with RT have too much overhead in most of > the codepath the game does not use. > > -M > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
