Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:24:33 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > Quoting Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>: >
> > > Thank you for your commentary which I agree with. With respect to these > potential issues I have always worked on a fix for where I thought real world > applications might cause these rather than try and fix it for just that program. > It was actually the opposite reason that my patch prevented thud from working; > it is idle tasks that become suddenly cpu hogs that in the real world are > potential starvers, and I made a useful fix for that issue. Thud just happened > to simulate those conditions and I only tested for it after I heard of thud. So > just a (hopefully reassuring) reminder; I'm not making an xmms interactivity > estimator, nor an X estimator, nor a "fix this exploit" one and so on. >
I have always assumed that things like X and xmms were just examples of the various sorts of things people would run when testing your scheduler.
But it was a mistaken assumption on my part that thud was an artificial work load. The author of thud, I believe it was, explained to me how thud is a simulation of a real workload, reverse-engineered from real-world experience.
My apologies.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |