Re: [test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest

2007-04-05 Thread Mike Galbraith
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 looki

Re: [test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest

2007-04-05 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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. W

Re: [test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest

2007-04-05 Thread Con Kolivas
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

Re: [test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest

2007-04-05 Thread Mike Galbraith
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 pre

Re: [test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest

2007-04-05 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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 ha

Re: [test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest

2007-04-05 Thread Mike Galbraith
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 tha

[test] sched: SD-latest versus Mike's latest

2007-04-05 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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