Messages in this thread | | | From | el_es <> | Subject | Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:00:08 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
Ingo Molnar <mingo <at> elte.hu> writes:
> For example 'Compile' latencies: > > --- Benchmarking simulated cpu of Audio in the presence of simulated Load > Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met > v2.6.30: Compile 0.003 +/- 0.00426 0.014 100 100 > BFS: Compile 0.007 +/- 0.00751 0.019 100 100 > > but ... with a near 100% standard deviation that's pretty hard to > judge. The Max Latency went from 14 usecs under v2.6.30 to 19 usecs > on BFS. > [...] > Ingo >
This just struck me : maybe what desktop users *feel* is exactly that : current approach is too fine-grained, trying to achieve the minimum latency with *most* reproductible result (less stddev) at all cost ? And BFS just doesn't care? I know this sounds like heresy.
[ the space below is to satisfy the brain-dead GMane posting engine].
Lukasz
| |