Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762223AbXETGa1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 02:30:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759119AbXETGaU (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 02:30:20 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]:30686 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758679AbXETGaT (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 02:30:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=UXT3BO37oTVknsIh+13+QqpCHmFj/xFu9RestglV1MMQi7nfPnFKFMj7Jp2Xny0AhiX40BNG4QbyVc/s3wX9eNQO0N50fAkp6PHzUDuZ8x5BLIM1f7/iX3THRF7HGdU0vLmQw/HmjA43MUTVg1vWXOAeJzx0RcegqkZ3pGraP98= Message-ID: <2c0942db0705192330r4004d7bem3556c939c1581553@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 23:30:17 -0700 From: "Ray Lee" To: "Michael Gerdau" Subject: Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48 Cc: "Bill Davidsen" , "Linux Kernel M/L" In-Reply-To: <200705200812.26391.mgd@technosis.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <464F57DD.2000309@tmr.com> <2c0942db0705191322p54e05e40p512146f21f68299a@mail.gmail.com> <464F99EC.3080006@tmr.com> <200705200812.26391.mgd@technosis.de> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0e80847f57af4530 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1654 Lines: 32 On 5/19/07, Michael Gerdau wrote: > > Okay, here's a bonus, http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_02.html > > not only has the right values, the labels are changed, and I included > > more data points from the fc6 recent kernel and the 2.6.21.1 kernel with > > the mainline scheduler. > > > > The nice thing about this test and the IPC test I posted recently is > > that they are reasonable stable on the same hardware, so even if someone > > argues about what they show, they show the same thing each time and can > > therefore be used to compare changes. > > I'm not sure I follow you here. The difference between 2.6.21 and 2.6.21.1 > are two simple (as in involving little code) changes to ip4 and ip6 net > and I'm not even sure that code is used at all in your tests. > [Read: IMO the 2.6.21 and 2.6.21.1 figures are for identical cases]. > > Assuming the above is correct then IMO the variance between the two > "dublicated" lines (cfs-v13 and sd048) is such that I would not have > written "that they are reasonable stable on the same hardware". > > I don't want to say the values aren't useful. I simply think there is > a high noiselevel. The noise is reflected in the standard deviation he has on those rows. The average +- stdev of one overlaps the average +- stdev of the other, which shows that the test *is* stable, where stable (as always) is defined to some accuracy. - 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/