On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Although it _should_ have been a net code size win, because if you look > at the diff you'll see that other useful things were removed as well: > sleeper fairness, CPU time distribution smarts, tunings, scheduler > instrumentation code, etc.
To be fair to Roman, he probably started development off an earlier CFS, most probably 2.6.23-rc3-git1, if I guess correctly from his original posting. So it's likely he missed out on some of the tunings/comments(?) etc code that got merged after that. > > I also ran hackbench (in a haphazard way) a few times on it vs. CFS in > > my tree, and RFS was faster to some degree (it varied).. > > here are some actual numbers for "hackbench 50" on -rc5, 10 consecutive > runs fresh after bootup, Core2Duo, UP: Again, it would be interesting to benchmark against 2.6.23-rc3-git1. And also probably rediff vs 2.6.23-rc3-git1 and compare how the code actually changed ... but admittedly, doing so would be utterly pointless, because much water has flowed down the Ganges since -rc3 (misc CFS improvements, Peter's patches that you mentioned). So a "look, I told you so" kind of situation wouldn't really be constructive at all. > It would be far more reviewable and objectively judgeable on an item by > item basis if Roman posted the finegrained patches i asked for. (which > patch series should be sorted in order of intrusiveness - i.e. leaving > the harder changes to the end of the series.) Absolutely. And if there indeed are net improvements (be it for corner cases) over latest CFS-rc5, while maintaining performance for the common cases at the same time, well, that can only be a good thing. Just my Rs. 0.02, Satyam - 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/