[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1291568977.7521.75.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:09:37 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@...or.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Regression: sched: automated per session task groups
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 17:59 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 15:12 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > As soon as you do that from the same terminal that you're going to
> > > > launch the "make" from, you're back to total lossage. Are you going
> > > > to explain to a student that "oh, you need to create a new
> > > > gnome-terminal tab and launch firefox from that"?
> > >
> > > Btw, most people don't do that anymore. They don't use terminals. They
> >
> > Its a regression for those who do - and often have good reason to do.
> > This is of course why you don't put policy in the kernel and the original
> > patch was bogus anyway.
>
> What is a very clear regression is a threaded app (say firefox) vs a
> single threaded app, particularly on UP. The per thread scheduling
> model wins hands down there, because the scheduler very heavily favors
> the threaded application. Take that unfairness away, and you have an
> undeniable regression. Yes, it's not black and white, never is.
P.S. You also have an obvious _progression_ from the perspective of the
single threaded application, which may just as well be interactive.
--
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