On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:30:35PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-11 15:30 ------- > 1% good > 2% acceptable > 5% absolute limit > 10% unacceptable > > Note that the performance penalty may rise as more priorities are added, so > that should be taken into account in the design and testing. >
Ok, decision time. I'm getting a 7-10% slowdown with the code I've got written now, with two sets of priorities (0 and 1000). I need to double check the results of a mass-check to make sure it's running all of the tests correctly, then I'll post another patch. I don't see us getting more speed out of the loop over priorities approach, but welcome input on ways it can be made better. BTW, I see this, well the fact that AWL does not run after all other tests, as a showstopper for 3.0.0. Are we stuck on the assign priorities to tests approach? Michael
