Re: [interbench numbers] Re: interactive task starvation

[Con Kolivas]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22 pm, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 07:27 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I wonder why the results are affected even without any throttling
> > settings but just patched in? Specifically I'm talking about deadlines
> > met with video being sensitive to this. Were there any other config
> > differences between the tests? Changing HZ would invalidate the results
> > for example. Comments?
>
> I wondered the same.  The only difference then is the lower idle sleep
> prio, tighter timeslice enforcement, and the SMP buglet fix for now <
> p->timestamp due to SMP rounding.  Configs are identical.

Ok well if we're going to run with this set of changes then we need to assess 
the affect of each change and splitting them up into separate patches would 
be appropriate normally anyway. That will allow us to track down which 
particular patch causes it. That won't mean we will turn down the change 
based on that one result, though, it will just help us understand it better.

Cheers,
Con
-
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/