Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

[el_es]

Ingo Molnar <mingo <at> elte.hu> writes:


> For example 'Compile' latencies:
> 
> --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated Load
>                   Latency +/- SD (ms)  Max Latency   % Desired CPU  %
Deadlines Met
>  v2.6.30: Compile   0.003 +/- 0.00426    0.014             100            100
>      BFS: Compile   0.007 +/- 0.00751    0.019             100            100
> 
> but ... with a near 100% standard deviation that's pretty hard to 
> judge. The Max Latency went from 14 usecs under v2.6.30 to 19 usecs 
> on BFS.
> 
[...]
> 	Ingo
> 

This just struck me : maybe what desktop users *feel* is exactly that : current
approach is too fine-grained, trying to achieve the minimum latency with *most*
reproductible result (less stddev) at all cost ? And BFS just doesn't care? 
I know this sounds like heresy.

[ the space below is to satisfy the brain-dead GMane posting engine].










Lukasz



--
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/