Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757944AbXIBI1p (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 04:27:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756818AbXIBI1g (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 04:27:36 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:58436 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754582AbXIBI1f (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 04:27:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 14:10:37 +0530 (IST) From: Satyam Sharma X-X-Sender: satyam@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in To: Ingo Molnar cc: Daniel Walker , Roman Zippel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , peterz@infradead.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Fair Scheduler In-Reply-To: <20070902072029.GA24427@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <1188694367.11196.42.camel@dhcp193.mvista.com> <20070902072029.GA24427@elte.hu> 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: 1967 Lines: 44 On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Although it _should_ have been a net code size win, because if you look > at the diff you'll see that other useful things were removed as well: > sleeper fairness, CPU time distribution smarts, tunings, scheduler > instrumentation code, etc. To be fair to Roman, he probably started development off an earlier CFS, most probably 2.6.23-rc3-git1, if I guess correctly from his original posting. So it's likely he missed out on some of the tunings/comments(?) etc code that got merged after that. > > I also ran hackbench (in a haphazard way) a few times on it vs. CFS in > > my tree, and RFS was faster to some degree (it varied).. > > here are some actual numbers for "hackbench 50" on -rc5, 10 consecutive > runs fresh after bootup, Core2Duo, UP: Again, it would be interesting to benchmark against 2.6.23-rc3-git1. And also probably rediff vs 2.6.23-rc3-git1 and compare how the code actually changed ... but admittedly, doing so would be utterly pointless, because much water has flowed down the Ganges since -rc3 (misc CFS improvements, Peter's patches that you mentioned). So a "look, I told you so" kind of situation wouldn't really be constructive at all. > It would be far more reviewable and objectively judgeable on an item by > item basis if Roman posted the finegrained patches i asked for. (which > patch series should be sorted in order of intrusiveness - i.e. leaving > the harder changes to the end of the series.) Absolutely. And if there indeed are net improvements (be it for corner cases) over latest CFS-rc5, while maintaining performance for the common cases at the same time, well, that can only be a good thing. Just my Rs. 0.02, Satyam - 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/