Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [interbench numbers] Re: interactive task starvation | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:22:58 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 07:27 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 23:14, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > I was asked to do some interbench runs, with various throttle settings, > > see below. I'll not attempt to interpret results, only present raw data > > for others to examine. > > > > Tested throttling patches version is V24, because while I was compiling > > 2.6.16-rc6-mm2 in preparation for comparison, I found I'd introduced an > > SMP buglet in V23. Something good came from the added testing whether > > the results are informative or not :) > > Thanks! > > I wonder why the results are affected even without any throttling settings but > just patched in? Specifically I'm talking about deadlines met with video > being sensitive to this. Were there any other config differences between the > tests? Changing HZ would invalidate the results for example. Comments?
I wondered the same. The only difference then is the lower idle sleep prio, tighter timeslice enforcement, and the SMP buglet fix for now < p->timestamp due to SMP rounding. Configs are identical.
-Mike
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |