Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 May 2007 23:30:17 -0700 | From | "Ray Lee" <> | Subject | Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48 |
| |
On 5/19/07, Michael Gerdau <mgd@technosis.de> wrote: > > Okay, here's a bonus, http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_02.html > > not only has the right values, the labels are changed, and I included > > more data points from the fc6 recent kernel and the 2.6.21.1 kernel with > > the mainline scheduler. > > > > The nice thing about this test and the IPC test I posted recently is > > that they are reasonable stable on the same hardware, so even if someone > > argues about what they show, they show the same thing each time and can > > therefore be used to compare changes. > > I'm not sure I follow you here. The difference between 2.6.21 and 2.6.21.1 > are two simple (as in involving little code) changes to ip4 and ip6 net > and I'm not even sure that code is used at all in your tests. > [Read: IMO the 2.6.21 and 2.6.21.1 figures are for identical cases]. > > Assuming the above is correct then IMO the variance between the two > "dublicated" lines (cfs-v13 and sd048) is such that I would not have > written "that they are reasonable stable on the same hardware". > > I don't want to say the values aren't useful. I simply think there is > a high noiselevel.
The noise is reflected in the standard deviation he has on those rows. The average +- stdev of one overlaps the average +- stdev of the other, which shows that the test *is* stable, where stable (as always) is defined to some accuracy. - 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/
| |