Re: Ten percent test

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 19:28 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2007 19:07, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:03 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >  - fiftyp.c:  noticeable, but alot better than previously!
> > >
> > > fiftyp.c seems to have been stumbled across by accident as having an
> > > effect when Xenofon was trying to recreate Mike's 50% x 3 test case. I
> > > suggest a ten percent version like the following would be more useful as
> > > a test for the harmful effect discovered in fiftyp.c. (/me throws in
> > > obligatory code style change).
> > >
> > > Starts 15 processes that sleep ten times longer than they run. Change
> > > forks to 15 times the number of cpus you have and it should work on any
> > > size hardware.
> >
> > I was more focused on the general case, but all I should have to do to
> > de-claw all of these sleep exploits is account rr time (only a couple of
> > lines, done and building now).  It's only a couple of lines.
> 
> The more you try to "de-claw" these sleep exploits the less effective you make 
> your precious interactive estimator. Feel free to keep adding endless tweaks 
> to undo the other tweaks in order to try and achieve what SD has by design.

I haven't seen SD achieve what it's design docs claim yet, so yup, I'm
going to keep right on trying to fix the corner cases in what we have
that _does_ give me the interactivity I want.

	-Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/