Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269255AbUICGgq (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:36:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269310AbUICGgq (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:36:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:32953 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269255AbUICGgU (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:36:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:36:58 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Lee Revell Cc: Eric St-Laurent , linux-kernel , "K.R. Foley" , Felipe Alfaro Solana , Daniel Schmitt , Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com, "P.O. Gaillard" Subject: Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-R0 Message-ID: <20040903063658.GA11801@elte.hu> References: <20040902063335.GA17657@elte.hu> <20040902065549.GA18860@elte.hu> <20040902111003.GA4256@elte.hu> <20040902215728.GA28571@elte.hu> <1094162812.1347.54.camel@krustophenia.net> <20040902221402.GA29434@elte.hu> <1094171082.19760.7.camel@krustophenia.net> <1094181447.4815.6.camel@orbiter> <1094192788.19760.47.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1094192788.19760.47.camel@krustophenia.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1061 Lines: 26 * Lee Revell wrote: > -Q and later use the current method, which is like the above except > the second hump is discarded, as it is a function of the scheduling > latency and the period size rather than just the scheduling latency: > > http://krustophenia.net/testresults.php?dataset=2.6.9-rc1-Q6 > > So, don't be fooled by the numbers, the newest version of the patch is > in fact the best. I have been meaning to go back and measure the > current patches with the old code but it's pretty low priority... vanilla kernel 2.6.8.1 would be quite interesting to get a few charts of - especially if your measurement methodology has changed. There's not much sense in re-testing older VP patches. also, has the userspace workload you are using stayed constant during all these tests? Ingo - 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/