RE: Giving developers clue how many testers verifiedcertain kernel version
Lee Revell wrote: {
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 21:15 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> OK, I will, but I first of all need to learn how to tell if benchmarks
> are better or worse.
Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding scheduler
related interactivity regressions.
}
Scheduler performance does not imply net system performance.
In fact, a well tuned scheduler hides absolute performance-related issues!
--Al
-
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/
RE: Giving developers clue how many testers verifiedcertain kernel version
Lee Revell wrote: {
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 21:15 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
OK, I will, but I first of all need to learn how to tell if benchmarks
are better or worse.
Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding scheduler
related interactivity regressions.
}
Scheduler performance does not imply net system performance.
In fact, a well tuned scheduler hides absolute performance-related issues!
--Al
-
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/
