Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 23:12 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

> With your version of latt.c, I get these results with 2.6-tip vs 
> 2.6.31-rc9-bfs:
> 
> 
> (mainline)
> Averages:
> ------------------------------
>          Max            50 usec
>          Avg            12 usec
>          Stdev           3 usec
> 
> 
> (BFS)
> Averages:
> ------------------------------
>          Max           474 usec
>          Avg            11 usec
>          Stdev          16 usec
> 
> 
> However, the interactivity problems still remain.  Does that mean it's 
> not a latency issue?

Could be a fairness issue.  If X+client needs more than it's fair share
of CPU, there's nothing to do but use nice levels.  I'm stuck with
unaccelerated X (nvidia card), so if I want a good DVD watching or
whatever eye-candy experience while my box does a lot of other work, I
either have to use SCHED_IDLE/nice for the background stuff, or renice
X.  That's the down side of a fair scheduler.

There is another variant of latency related interactivity issue for the
desktop though, too LOW latency.  If X and clients are switching too
fast, redraw can look nasty, sliced/diced.

	-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/