On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Jim Hazen wrote:
> That's a good point. However on my Dual 450 there seems to be no
> performance loss with these new settings. In fact things seem a bit
> more responsive. I'm not sure exactly why, but my guess would be
> extensive use of 'wait and notify' in various programs. Before there
> was a 10ms penalty if one wanted to use this mechanism, now there isn't
> (but with the risk of many more context switches). My experience seems
> to indicate that this penalty outweighs the savings of fewer switches.
It's actually more complicated than this :)
If someone is interested I guess Linux kernel mailing list is
a good source for such informations.
Generally better responsiveness is caused by a higher chance that
scheduler will sonner finish schedule interactive jobs - because time
quantums are 10 times smaller thus especially CPU hangry applications
like jave will see benefit of this as long computationaly intensive
threads will be more frequently interrupted by small interactive tasks.
The problem is that current linux scheduler is not optimal
(2.5.X kernels now has O(1) scheduler and some realtime patches which
should improve throughput of the system)
But as I said most probably this is not discussion which should be
on this list.
--
.''`. Which fundamental human right do you want to give up today?
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
`. `' Zdenek Kabelac kabi@{debian.org, users.sf.net, fi.muni.cz}
`- When in doubt, just blame the Euro. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
