On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 11:43 -0400, Malita, Florin wrote: > Regarding the configuration component, I can understand why certain > features and the overhead associated with them are preferred vs raw > kernel performance. OTOH, leaving 62% on the table makes me feel uneasy. > Do I really need high mem, SE Linux or a debug-enabled kernel on my > desktop? Don't think so. Ah, but is Unixbench a relevant benchmark for a desktop? For example making process creation 15% faster isn't very useful if process creation accounts for .001% of application startup time. A server's a different story, but there e.g. highmem and SELinux are very useful. > But I do want the kernel preemption enabled... The kernel team has that disabled because it's unsafe, IIRC. > My point is: with so many kernel features, "one size fits all" doesn't > hold anymore and maybe we should have a much broader array of kernels to > choose from at install time (not just architecture/SMP variants). This > should be fairly easy to support as it's just a matter of adding new > build configurations in the kernel SRPM/spec. I'm skeptical that (apart from preemption) having e.g. a "desktop" kernel would be useful. We have a lot of optimization we could do (and are doing) in userspace. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
