Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certainkernel version

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > 
> > Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
> > scheduler related interactivity regressions.
> 
> I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are
> scheduler-related. They all tend to be disk IO issues (bad scheduling or
> just plain bad drivers), and then sometimes just VM misbehaviour.
> 
> People are looking at all these RT patches, when the thing is that most
> nobody will ever be able to tell the difference between 10us and 1ms
> latencies unless it causes a skip in audio.

I agree re: the RT patches, but what makes Con's benchmark useful is
that it also tests interactivity (measuring in msecs vs. usecs) with
everything running SCHED_NORMAL, which is a much better approximation of
a desktop load.  And the numbers do go well up into the range where
people would notice, tens and hundreds of ms.

Lee



-
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/