On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:47:27PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >( Lets be cautious though: the jury is still out whether people actually > > like this more than the current approach. While CFS feedback looks > > promising after a whopping 3 days of it being released [ ;-) ], the > > test coverage of all 'fairness centric' schedulers, even considering > > years of availability is less than 1% i'm afraid, and that < 1% was > > mostly self-selecting. ) > > > All of my testing has been on desktop machines, although in most cases > they were really loaded desktops which had load avg 10..100 from time to > time, and none were low memory machines. Up to CFS v3 I thought > nicksched was my winner, now CFSv3 looks better, by not having stumbles > under stupid loads.
What base_timeslice were you using for nicksched, and what HZ? - 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/