Re: [ck] [benchmark] Interbench 2.6.16-ck/mm

[Radoslaw Szkodzinski <astralstorm@gorzow.mm.pl>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1147 bytes --]

On Saturday 25 March 2006 09:28, Con Kolivas wrote yet:
> On Saturday 25 March 2006 19:21, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 March 2006 05:01, Con Kolivas wrote yet:
> > > I don't expect that staircase will be better in every single situation.
> > > However it will be better more often, especially when it counts (like
> > > audio or video skipping) and far more predictable. All that in 300
> > > lines less code :)
> >
> > I thinks the main difference is those other scheduler improvements.
> > Some of them are compatible with staircase.
> > Could you also try a mixed and matched 2.6.16-ck1+mm?
>
> You're kidding, right? Check the code.

Yes and no. I was kidding about "scheduler improvements" part.
(they're mostly NUMA-only)

But of course memload, read and write latencies aren't necessarily caused by 
scheduler itself. 
(burn also reads a file)

The easiest thing to do would be to add staircase to -mm and see what happens.
It shouldn't be hard to port. (in fact, it may apply cleanly)

-- 
GPG Key id:  0xD1F10BA2
Fingerprint: 96E2 304A B9C4 949A 10A0  9105 9543 0453 D1F1 0BA2

AstralStorm

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]