[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080828130708.GA19672@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:07:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default
* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> There is no customer issue and there is no handwaving about
> compliance;
well, the reason i'm asking is that i cannot for anything in the world
imagine you being so upset about _anything_ but something that involves
benchmark runs ;-)
And what does SCHED_FIFO RT policy scheduling have to do with
performance and benchmarks? Nothing usually in the real world, except
for this little known fact: a common 'tuning' for TPC database
benchmarks is to run all DB threads as SCHED_FIFO to squeeze the last
0.1% of performance out of the setup.
So - and i'm taking an educated guess here - is SCHED_FIFO+TPC
performance perhaps one of the factors that played a role in you
initiating this thread? If yes then it's obviously an incredibly broken
use of SCHED_FIFO and we can add the sysctl tuning to the long list of
dozens of other tunings that happen before a TPC run anyway.
Hm?
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