Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:34:55 -0500 | From | Alejandro Bonilla <> | Subject | Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version |
| |
Lee Revell wrote:
>On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 21:15 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote: > > >>OK, I will, but I first of all need to learn how to tell if benchmarks >>are better or worse. >> >> > >Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding >scheduler related interactivity regressions. It certainly has confirmed >what we already knew re: SCHED_FIFO performance, if we extend that to >SCHED_OTHER which is a more interesting problem then there's serious >potential for improvement. AFAIK no one has posted any 2.4 vs 2.6 >interbench results yet... > > I will give it a try.
>I suspect a lot of the boot time issue is due to userspace. But, it >should be trivial to benchmark this one, just use the TSC or whatever to >measure the time from first kernel entry to execing init(). > > You got it! As a laptop user, I think it just takes too much more. I think it is maybe hotplugs fault with the kernel? I don't know how much is done by the kernel or userspace but it definitely takes longer.
I could do some sort of benchmarks, but believe me, I hate to say this, but I use 2.6 because of much more power managements features in it. Else I like 2.4 a lot more. Is like, the feels is sharper. Sometimes when I got into a tty1, it takes some time after I put my username in to prompt me for a password. This does not occur when I boot with 2.4.27. Strange huh?
I don't want to be an ass and say that 2.4 is better, instead I want to help and let determine why is it that I feel 2.6 slower.
.Alejandro
>Lee > > > >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |