Messages in this thread | | | From | Radoslaw Szkodzinski <> | Subject | Re: [ck] [benchmark] Interbench 2.6.16-ck/mm | Date | Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:46:38 +0100 |
| |
On Saturday 25 March 2006 09:28, Con Kolivas wrote yet: > On Saturday 25 March 2006 19:21, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote: > > On Saturday 25 March 2006 05:01, Con Kolivas wrote yet: > > > I don't expect that staircase will be better in every single situation. > > > However it will be better more often, especially when it counts (like > > > audio or video skipping) and far more predictable. All that in 300 > > > lines less code :) > > > > I thinks the main difference is those other scheduler improvements. > > Some of them are compatible with staircase. > > Could you also try a mixed and matched 2.6.16-ck1+mm? > > You're kidding, right? Check the code.
Yes and no. I was kidding about "scheduler improvements" part. (they're mostly NUMA-only)
But of course memload, read and write latencies aren't necessarily caused by scheduler itself. (burn also reads a file)
The easiest thing to do would be to add staircase to -mm and see what happens. It shouldn't be hard to port. (in fact, it may apply cleanly)
-- GPG Key id: 0xD1F10BA2 Fingerprint: 96E2 304A B9C4 949A 10A0 9105 9543 0453 D1F1 0BA2
AstralStorm [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |