Subject: Re: [announce] CFS-devel, performance improvements
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070911200459.GA6974@elte.hu>
References: <20070911200459.GA6974@elte.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:20:21 +0200
Message-Id: <1189578021.6493.15.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1429
Lines: 30

On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 22:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> fresh back from the Kernel Summit, Peter Zijlstra and me are pleased to 
> announce the latest iteration of the CFS scheduler development tree. Our 
> main focus has been on simplifications and performance - and as part of 
> that we've also picked up some ideas from Roman Zippel's 'Really Fair 
> Scheduler' patch as well and integrated them into CFS. We'd like to ask 
> people go give these patches a good workout, especially with an eye on 
> any interactivity regressions.

Initial test-drive looks good here, but I do see a regression.  First
the good news.

fairtest2 is perfect, more perfect than ever seen before in fact.  Mixed
interval sleepers/hog looks fine as well (can't say perfect due to
startup differences with the various proggies, but cpu% looks perfect).
Amarok song switch time under hefty kbuild load is fine as well.  I
haven't done heavy multimedia testing yet, but will give it a more
thorough workout later (errands).

The regression:  I see some GUI lurch, easily reproducible by running a
make -j5 and moving the mouse in a circle... perceptible (100ms or so)
lurches not present in rc5. 

	-Mike

-
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/