Re: [interbench numbers] Re: interactive task starvation

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:43 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> 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.

I'm investigating now.

	-Mike

-
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/