Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:47:14 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>
Cc: Rob Hussey <robjhussey@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       ck@vds.kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler benchmarks - a follow-up
Message-ID: <20070917114714.GA32532@elte.hu>
References: <6b8cef970709170221s4301e896x2ee123a149c05c3a@mail.gmail.com> <200709170712.03679.edt@aei.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200709170712.03679.edt@aei.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 734
Lines: 21


* Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca> wrote:

> I gather this was with the complete -ck patchset?  It would be 
> interesting to see if just SD performed as well.  If it does, CFS 
> needs more work. if not there are other things in -ck that really do 
> improve performance and should be looked into.

also see:

   http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/17/172

i think at least part of the differences is due to the different 
sched_clock() accuracy and performance in v2.6.22-ck versus v2.6.23-cfs.

	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/