Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Ten percent test | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:48:39 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 19:28 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Friday 06 April 2007 19:07, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:03 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:54, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > - fiftyp.c: noticeable, but alot better than previously! > > > > > > fiftyp.c seems to have been stumbled across by accident as having an > > > effect when Xenofon was trying to recreate Mike's 50% x 3 test case. I > > > suggest a ten percent version like the following would be more useful as > > > a test for the harmful effect discovered in fiftyp.c. (/me throws in > > > obligatory code style change). > > > > > > Starts 15 processes that sleep ten times longer than they run. Change > > > forks to 15 times the number of cpus you have and it should work on any > > > size hardware. > > > > I was more focused on the general case, but all I should have to do to > > de-claw all of these sleep exploits is account rr time (only a couple of > > lines, done and building now). It's only a couple of lines. > > The more you try to "de-claw" these sleep exploits the less effective you make > your precious interactive estimator. Feel free to keep adding endless tweaks > to undo the other tweaks in order to try and achieve what SD has by design.
I haven't seen SD achieve what it's design docs claim yet, so yup, I'm going to keep right on trying to fix the corner cases in what we have that _does_ give me the interactivity I want.
-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/
| |