> Andrew Morton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I've backed out of the low-latency patch but kept the timepegs patch in.
I've applied your reiserfs low-latency patch on a stock 2.4.1-pre11 kernel.
Let's see what happens :)
Shawn.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Will this patch work with the low-latency patch? I have a few other patches in this
kernel (one
fixing the ps hang issue).
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Shawn Starr wrote:
> >
> > Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
>glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
> > system was not sluggish
On Sunday, January 28, 2001 02:29:09 PM +1100 Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Starr wrote:
>>
>> Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
>> glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X)
>> etc.
>>
>> Seems to be a go for
Shawn Starr wrote:
>
> Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
>glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
> system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X) etc.
>
> Seems to be a go for latency improvements on this system.
Shawn,
could you please try this patch in a pristine
Shawn Starr wrote:
Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X) etc.
Seems to be a go for latency improvements on this system.
Shawn,
could you please try this patch in a pristine 2.4.1-pre10?
On Sunday, January 28, 2001 02:29:09 PM +1100 Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Starr wrote:
Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X)
etc.
Seems to be a go for latency
Will this patch work with the low-latency patch? I have a few other patches in this
kernel (one
fixing the ps hang issue).
Andrew Morton wrote:
Shawn Starr wrote:
Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
system was not sluggish (mouse
Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I've backed out of the low-latency patch but kept the timepegs patch in.
I've applied your reiserfs low-latency patch on a stock 2.4.1-pre11 kernel.
Let's see what happens :)
Shawn.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
It should also be noted, that while using GCC and other tasks, the latency has
returned to 2.2
levels from my point. Before. If you want to me to do any testing I can do that.
I applied the timepegs patch:
Kernel timepegs enabled. See http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/
Shawn.
> >
> >
Shawn Starr wrote:
>
> Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
>glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
> system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X) etc.
>
> Seems to be a go for latency improvements on this system.
hmm.. OK, thanks.
Chris, this seems to be a worthwhile
Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X) etc.
Seems to be a go for latency improvements on this system.
Shawn Starr wrote:
> Applying now.
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Shawn,
> >
> > I've
Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X) etc.
Seems to be a go for latency improvements on this system.
Shawn Starr wrote:
Applying now.
Andrew Morton wrote:
Shawn,
I've pretty much
Shawn Starr wrote:
Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the
system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X) etc.
Seems to be a go for latency improvements on this system.
hmm.. OK, thanks.
Chris, this seems to be a worthwhile
It should also be noted, that while using GCC and other tasks, the latency has
returned to 2.2
levels from my point. Before. If you want to me to do any testing I can do that.
I applied the timepegs patch:
Kernel timepegs enabled. See http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/
Shawn.
Andrew,
Applying now.
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> I've pretty much completed the low-latency patch against reiserfs.
> It seems to be a little more latency-prone than ext2, but under normal
> workloads it's not significant. The worst-case is 100 milliseconds,
> but that's when you're doing
Shawn,
I've pretty much completed the low-latency patch against reiserfs.
It seems to be a little more latency-prone than ext2, but under normal
workloads it's not significant. The worst-case is 100 milliseconds,
but that's when you're doing insane things to it.
You may care to apply
Shawn,
I've pretty much completed the low-latency patch against reiserfs.
It seems to be a little more latency-prone than ext2, but under normal
workloads it's not significant. The worst-case is 100 milliseconds,
but that's when you're doing insane things to it.
You may care to apply
Applying now.
Andrew Morton wrote:
Shawn,
I've pretty much completed the low-latency patch against reiserfs.
It seems to be a little more latency-prone than ext2, but under normal
workloads it's not significant. The worst-case is 100 milliseconds,
but that's when you're doing insane
Sure, but Im not sure what to test ;)
If you've got any special patches for 2.4 lemme know and I'll apply them I've
got all night heh
Shawn.
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Saturday, January 20, 2001 02:59:24 PM -0500 Gregory Maxwell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at
On Saturday, January 20, 2001 02:59:24 PM -0500 Gregory Maxwell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 02:50:16PM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
>> It just seems that since using 2.4 ive noticed my poor Pentium 200Mhz
>> slow down whether being in X or otherwise. It just seems that
On Saturday, January 20, 2001 02:59:24 PM -0500 Gregory Maxwell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 02:50:16PM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
It just seems that since using 2.4 ive noticed my poor Pentium 200Mhz
slow down whether being in X or otherwise. It just seems that the
Sure, but Im not sure what to test ;)
If you've got any special patches for 2.4 lemme know and I'll apply them I've
got all night heh
Shawn.
Chris Mason wrote:
On Saturday, January 20, 2001 02:59:24 PM -0500 Gregory Maxwell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 02:50:16PM
22 matches
Mail list logo
