Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up

* Ed Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset?  It would be 
> interesting to see if just SD performed as well.  If it does, CFS 
> needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do 
> improve performance and should be looked into.

also see:

   http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/17/172

i think at least part of the differences is due to the different 
sched_clock() accuracy and performance in v2.6.22-ck versus v2.6.23-cfs.

	Ingo
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
    • From: "Rob Hussey" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
    • From: Ed Tomlinson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: ata_piix, laptop cdrom, ICH7: EH, limiting speed to PIO
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] pata_it821x: fix lost interrupt with atapi devices
• Previous by thread: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
• Next by thread: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]