On Thursday 29 March 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote: > hm, how about the questions Mike raised (there were a couple of cases of > friction between 'the design as documented and announced' and 'the code > as implemented')? As far as i saw they were still largely unanswered - > but let me know if they are all answered and addressed:
I spent less time emailing and more time coding. I have been working on addressing whatever people brought up. > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117465220309006&w=2 Attended to. > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117489673929124&w=2 Attended to. > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117489831930240&w=2 Checked fine. > and the numbers he posted: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117448900626028&w=2 Attended to. > his test conclusion was that under CPU load, RSDL (SD) generally does > not hold up to mainline's interactivity. There have been improvements since the earlier iterations but it's still a fairness based design. Mike's "sticking point" test case should be improved as well. My call based on my own testing and feedback from users is: Under niced loads it is 99% in favour of SD. Under light loads it is 95% in favour of SD. Under Heavy loads it becomes proportionately in favour of mainline. The crossover is somewhere around a load of 4. If the reluctance to renice X goes away I'd say it was 99% across the board and to much higher loads. > Ingo -- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/