On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 02:08 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > looks interesting - could you send the patch?
> > >
> > > Ok, this is
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice -10 on mainline ruins the latency of nice 0 tasks unlike SD. New
> scheduling class just for X? Sounds like a very complicated
> userspace-changing way to just do the equivalent of "nice -n -10"
> obfuscated.
i think you are missing the point.
On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > looks interesting - could you send the patch?
> >
> > Ok, this is looking/feeling pretty good in testing. Comments on
> > fugliness etc
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:12 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > re-testing the weak points of the vanilla scheduler + Mike's:
> > >
> > > - thud.c:this workload has almost unnoticeable effect
> > > - fiftyp.c: noticeable, but alot better than
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > re-testing the weak points of the vanilla scheduler + Mike's:
> >
> > - thud.c:this workload has almost unnoticeable effect
> > - fiftyp.c: noticeable, but alot better than previously!
>
> Hmm. Here fiftyp.c is utterly harmless. If you
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> here's some test results, comparing SD-latest to Mike's-latest:
>
> re-testing the weak points of the vanilla scheduler + Mike's:
>
> - thud.c:this workload has almost unnoticeable effect
> - fiftyp.c: noticeable, but alot better
* Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > looks interesting - could you send the patch?
>
> Ok, this is looking/feeling pretty good in testing. Comments on
> fugliness etc much appreciated.
>
> Below the numbers is a snapshot of
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice -10 on mainline ruins the latency of nice 0 tasks unlike SD. New
scheduling class just for X? Sounds like a very complicated
userspace-changing way to just do the equivalent of nice -n -10
obfuscated.
i think you are missing the point. We _do
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 02:08 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
looks interesting - could you send the patch?
Ok, this is looking/feeling pretty
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
looks interesting - could you send the patch?
Ok, this is looking/feeling pretty good in testing. Comments on
fugliness etc much appreciated.
Below the numbers is a snapshot of my
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
here's some test results, comparing SD-latest to Mike's-latest:
re-testing the weak points of the vanilla scheduler + Mike's:
- thud.c:this workload has almost unnoticeable effect
- fiftyp.c: noticeable, but alot better than
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
re-testing the weak points of the vanilla scheduler + Mike's:
- thud.c:this workload has almost unnoticeable effect
- fiftyp.c: noticeable, but alot better than previously!
Hmm. Here fiftyp.c is utterly harmless. If you have a
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:12 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
re-testing the weak points of the vanilla scheduler + Mike's:
- thud.c:this workload has almost unnoticeable effect
- fiftyp.c: noticeable, but alot better than previously!
On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 08:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
looks interesting - could you send the patch?
Ok, this is looking/feeling pretty good in testing. Comments on
fugliness etc much
14 matches
Mail list logo
