From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
To: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:05:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57375.1332641134@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:53:32 -0400." <201203240553.32526.gene.heskett@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 989 bytes --]
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:53:32 -0400, Gene Heskett said:
> I for one am happy to see this, Con. I have been running an earlier patch
> as pclos applies it to 2.6.38.8, and I must say the desktop interactivity
> is very much improved over the non-bfs version.
I'va always wondered what people are using to measure interactivity. Do we have
some hard numbers from scheduler traces, or is it a "feels faster"? And if
it's a subjective thing, how are people avoiding confirmation bias (where you
decide it feels faster because it's the new kernel and *should* feel faster)?
Anybody doing blinded boots, where a random kernel old/new is booted and the
user grades the performance without knowing which one was actually running?
And yes, this can be a real issue - anybody who's been a aysadmin for
a while will have at least one story of scheduling an upgrade, scratching it
at the last minute, and then having users complain about how the upgrade
ruined performance and introduced bugs...
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 865 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-25 2:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-24 9:39 Con Kolivas
2012-03-24 9:53 ` Gene Heskett
2012-03-24 10:00 ` Con Kolivas
2012-03-25 2:05 ` Valdis.Kletnieks [this message]
2012-03-25 2:33 ` Con Kolivas
2012-03-25 13:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-03-26 22:30 ` Con Kolivas
2012-03-27 5:13 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <CABqErrGaBLisO4YK5dP2O9Pv0QonZ+q9G43jm=Nf12yWVG,<1332825236.7411.54.camel@marge.simpson.net>
[not found] ` <SNT112-W24CBD78928F4DD6AFDA564A14A0@phx.gbl>
2012-03-28 3:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-03-28 5:12 ` Heinz Diehl
2012-03-28 12:39 ` Nikos Chantziaras
2012-03-28 13:53 ` Heinz Diehl
2012-03-28 15:28 ` Nikos Chantziaras
2012-03-28 16:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-03-27 20:17 Mike Blue
2012-03-27 20:45 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-03-27 20:52 Micheal Blue
[not found] <iIvLH-3cI-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <iIw53-3TH-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <iIL45-3H1-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <iJTsB-44L-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2012-03-28 19:39 ` Martin Rogge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57375.1332641134@turing-police.cc.vt.edu \
--to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=gene.heskett@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®