[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version
    On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:34 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
    > On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
    > > > Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
    > > > scheduler related interactivity regressions.
    > >
    > > I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are
    > > scheduler-related. They all tend to be disk IO issues (bad scheduling or
    > > just plain bad drivers), and then sometimes just VM misbehaviour.
    > >
    > > People are looking at all these RT patches, when the thing is that most
    > > nobody will ever be able to tell the difference between 10us and 1ms
    > > latencies unless it causes a skip in audio.
    > I agree re: the RT patches, but what makes Con's benchmark useful is
    > that it also tests interactivity (measuring in msecs vs. usecs) with
    > everything running SCHED_NORMAL, which is a much better approximation of
    > a desktop load. And the numbers do go well up into the range where
    > people would notice, tens and hundreds of ms.

    Indeed, and the purpose of the benchmark is to quantify something rather than
    leave it to subjective feeling. Fortunately if I was to quantify the current
    kernel's situation I would say everything is fine.

    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: 2005-07-23 11:07    [W:0.022 / U:5.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site