From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754204Ab2CYCFj (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:05:39 -0400 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:42193 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752456Ab2CYCFi (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:05:38 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.4-dev To: Gene Heskett Cc: Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Mar 2012 05:53:32 -0400." <201203240553.32526.gene.heskett@gmail.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <201203240553.32526.gene.heskett@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1332641134_1934P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 22:05:34 -0400 Message-ID: <57375.1332641134@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 198.82.161.152 auth3.smtp.vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 2 pass X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=zidane.cc.vt.edu X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A020201.4F6E7D6F.008F,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1332641134_1934P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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... --==_Exmh_1332641134_1934P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iQIVAwUBT259bQdmEQWDXROgAQKRlQ/+Ok9BAbuzNwNIBElQZjhq8vIjzekapj+V jO8E7BVFr1SUhEzGHuAEJ/a2xA59Ow/wVvq+czSf09493d8bIQ0ofFStSol64ZaN /ybmz9zU8YE5PgkTxLMm5E8jp8mgx4GYRhPrv8OQMvwPA8uFvSngIkXXrXggsrYe ZqL5inzLrC93GvVUQO5hbzdPenGgZE78Ftl46nPfHVj1ZWgno5yL3kMfPnMb9zSO E/tLTK/6rOlVbC65gzuzq8nlLzPJYd2n5p0WblrLZ6iFa18xP/iklqZOnP//evfV yExYmAKOKAmHO/0rjp7lBCE5H3W3X/hAne1CWKBUYlR9ZFUMXXlsArwMal+q2OM9 LI3kV9YAU9n/a96iLKsyRJdJh8G2kGE0VL2tJ7cooanirJrozgs0lQpsKp3pWtw/ hSdYx1OHLzVcHxZBY9UC9OZlJLmthFBlfFL2quUelmS9Wtc3N4RkxyCUjsyk2Goh HJqenhoC1QdN9zpxgte/+GDHdxgCP96v87tR2HoXA6PFHGBSJVrLlrAYVMdXjCIM kVH5JAEPxHIBhBSoFeK83zMPeOEMLTCkK7pNnC2uV8ssIIlC3n63zf7b50GtI9Hm ahNVBALBAXr3x4dIfQB7o78Nf59U9cPZcNhYpUWJEesuSTZ/muB4vyyawQYMUt+y 1erqzy4gJLo= =u/ue -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1332641134_1934P--