On Monday 12 March 2007 22:08, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The test scenario was one any desktop user might do with every > > expectation responsiveness of the interactive application remain > > intact. I understand the concepts here Con, and I'm not knocking your > > scheduler. I find it to be a step forward on the one hand, but a step > > backward on the other. > > ok, then that step backward needs to be fixed. > > > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet > > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it. > > > > I'm not trying to find fault, I'm TESTING AND REPORTING. Was. > > Con, could you please take Mike's report of this regression seriously > and address it? Thanks,
Sure. Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as I mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency scheduling. I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness what more would you have happen to your liking with this test case? -- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
