| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The cynic in me wants to say that Colin Kolivas tried telling the kernel devs |
| 3 |
> for years about it and got stone-walled and ignored for years, despite |
| 4 |
> maintaining a set of desktop patches that worked really well. Eventually he |
| 5 |
> gave up and walked away in disgust when Ingo Molnar submitted scheduler |
| 6 |
> patches that looked awfully like Colin's, and his were accepted.... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I'm not that much of a cynic though. Instead I'll recommend you find a set of |
| 9 |
> desktop patches that work well and roll a kernel from those. The kernel devs |
| 10 |
> are mostly paid by organizations that have a vested interest in having Linux |
| 11 |
> work fabulously on big iron, so that's where the focus will tend to go. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I read the Con Kolivas story some time ago, although frankly I didn't |
| 14 |
know what to do about it since I wanted a newer kernel after that. Any |
| 15 |
recommendations for a similar ck-like patchset or anything like it for |
| 16 |
desktop performance on later kernels? I doubt my toy boxes will really |
| 17 |
hit server bottlenecks anyway :) |
Archives