Re: [PATCH] sched: staircase deadline misc fixes
From: Con Kolivas
Date: Wed Mar 28 2007 - 19:05:08 EST
On Thursday 29 March 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> hm, how about the questions Mike raised (there were a couple of cases of
> friction between 'the design as documented and announced' and 'the code
> as implemented')? As far as i saw they were still largely unanswered -
> but let me know if they are all answered and addressed:
I spent less time emailing and more time coding. I have been working on
addressing whatever people brought up.
> and the numbers he posted:
> his test conclusion was that under CPU load, RSDL (SD) generally does
> not hold up to mainline's interactivity.
There have been improvements since the earlier iterations but it's still a
fairness based design. Mike's "sticking point" test case should be improved
My call based on my own testing and feedback from users is:
Under niced loads it is 99% in favour of SD.
Under light loads it is 95% in favour of SD.
Under Heavy loads it becomes proportionately in favour of mainline. The
crossover is somewhere around a load of 4.
If the reluctance to renice X goes away I'd say it was 99% across the board
and to much higher loads.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/