[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200703122223.07048.kernel@kolivas.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:23:06 +1100
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2
On Monday 12 March 2007 22:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> > The test scenario was one any desktop user might do with every
> > expectation responsiveness of the interactive application remain
> > intact. I understand the concepts here Con, and I'm not knocking your
> > scheduler. I find it to be a step forward on the one hand, but a step
> > backward on the other.
>
> ok, then that step backward needs to be fixed.
>
> > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet
> > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it.
> >
> > I'm not trying to find fault, I'm TESTING AND REPORTING. Was.
>
> Con, could you please take Mike's report of this regression seriously
> and address it? Thanks,
Sure.
Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as I
mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency scheduling.
I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness what more would you have happen to
your liking with this test case?
--
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists