[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070429065900.GB32281@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 08:59:01 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, Zach Carter <linux@...hcarter.com>,
buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6
* Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> I don't know if Mike still has problems with SD, but there are now
> several interesting reports of SD giving better feedback than CFS on
> real work. In my experience, CFS seems smoother on *technical* tests,
> which I agree that they do not really simulate real work.
well, there are several reports of CFS being significantly better than
SD on a number of workloads - and i know of only two reports where SD
was reported to be better than CFS: in Kasper's test (where i'd like to
know what the "3D stuff" he uses is and take a good look at that
workload), and another 3D report which was done against -v6. (And even
in these two reports the 'smoothness advantage' was not dramatic. If you
know of any other reports then please let me know!)
Ingo
-
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