Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [interbench numbers] Re: interactive task starvation | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:53:49 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 16:43 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22 pm, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 07:27 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > I wonder why the results are affected even without any throttling > > > settings but just patched in? Specifically I'm talking about deadlines > > > met with video being sensitive to this. Were there any other config > > > differences between the tests? Changing HZ would invalidate the results > > > for example. Comments? > > > > I wondered the same. The only difference then is the lower idle sleep > > prio, tighter timeslice enforcement, and the SMP buglet fix for now < > > p->timestamp due to SMP rounding. Configs are identical. > > Ok well if we're going to run with this set of changes then we need to assess > the affect of each change and splitting them up into separate patches would > be appropriate normally anyway. That will allow us to track down which > particular patch causes it. That won't mean we will turn down the change > based on that one result, though, it will just help us understand it better.
I'm investigating now.
-Mike
- 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/
| |