Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:18:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:18:06 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:9996 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 13:18:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:26:06 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Martin J. Bligh" cc: Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3 In-Reply-To: <9420000.1046974427@flay> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1029 Lines: 24 On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > It would be nice if we had a "batch-job-able" simulation of this situation, > to do more accurate testing with ... can anyone think of an easy way to > do such a thing? "waggle a few windows around on X and see if it feels > better to you or not" is kind of hard to do accurate testing with. > Of course, the simulation has to be accurate too, or it gets stupid ;-) It should be possible to use the same approach that the other latency testers use (ie contest&co), by just generating some specific background load (say, different mixtures of X clients and plain compute-bound things like kernel compiles). Ie measure directly exactly what we're interested in: the latency of some general X request, under different loads. Linus - 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/