Am 12/15/11 14:58, schrieb Daniel Kalchev: > > On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > […] >> That said: thrown out, data ignored, done. >> >> Now what? Where are we? We're right back where we were a day or two >> ago; meaning no closer to solving the dilemma reported by users and >> SCHED_ULE. Heck, we're not even sure if there is an issue, other than >> some folks confirming that SCHED_4BSD performs better for them (that's >> what started this whole thread), and there are at least a couple which >> have stated this. > > But, are any of these benchmarks really engaging the 4BSD/ULE scheduler > differences? Most such benchmarks are run on a system with no other load > whatsoever and in no way represent real world experience. > > What is more, I believe in such benchmarks "the system feels sluggish" is not > measured at all. Even if it is measured, if in such case the benchmark > finishes "better" - that is, faster, or say, makes the system freeze for the > user for the duration of the test -- it will be considered "win", because the > benchmark suite ran faster on that particular system -- whereas a system > which ran the benchmark fast, provided good interactive response etc would be > considered "loser".
I guess you have some proofs on that "feeling"? > > I think it is not good idea to hijack this thread, but instead focusing on > the other SCHED_ULE bashing thread to define an reasonable benchmark or a set > of benchmarks rather -- so that many would run it and provide feedback. > > > Daniel_______________________________________________
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
