[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

Con Kolivas wrote:
> Quoting Timothy Miller <>:

> Thank you for your commentary which I agree with. With respect to these
> potential issues I have always worked on a fix for where I thought real world
> applications might cause these rather than try and fix it for just that program.
> It was actually the opposite reason that my patch prevented thud from working;
> it is idle tasks that become suddenly cpu hogs that in the real world are
> potential starvers, and I made a useful fix for that issue. Thud just happened
> to simulate those conditions and I only tested for it after I heard of thud. So
> just a (hopefully reassuring) reminder; I'm not making an xmms interactivity
> estimator, nor an X estimator, nor a "fix this exploit" one and so on.

I have always assumed that things like X and xmms were just examples of
the various sorts of things people would run when testing your scheduler.

But it was a mistaken assumption on my part that thud was an artificial
work load. The author of thud, I believe it was, explained to me how
thud is a simulation of a real workload, reverse-engineered from
real-world experience.

My apologies.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.092 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site