Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:48:48 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen. | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:39:34 +0300
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:33:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > The moment there's real IO it becomes harder to analyze but the same > > basic behavior remains: the more unfair the IO scheduler, the "better" > > dbench results we get. > > Right now there is no disk IO at all. Only quite usual network and > process load.
I think the hope is that by saying there isn't a problem enough times, it will become truth. :-)
More seriously, Ingo, what in the world do we need to do in order to get you to start doing tbench runs and optimizing things (read as: fixing the regression you added)?
I'm personally working on a test fibonacci heap implementation for the fair sched code, and I already did all of the cost analysis all the way back to the 2.6.22 pre-CFS days.
But I'm NOT a scheduler developer, so it isn't my responsibility to do this crap for you. You added this regression, why do I have to get my hands dirty in order for there to be some hope that these regressions start to get fixed?
| |