Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754589AbYH1NHn (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:07:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752516AbYH1NHf (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:07:35 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:38292 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752463AbYH1NHf (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:07:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:07:08 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andi Kleen , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stefani Seibold , Dario Faggioli , Max Krasnyansky , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default Message-ID: <20080828130708.GA19672@elte.hu> References: <20080819103301.787700742@chello.nl> <200808272008.16106.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080828105408.GA4488@elte.hu> <200808282203.48396.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808282203.48396.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1193 Lines: 30 * Nick Piggin wrote: > There is no customer issue and there is no handwaving about > compliance; well, the reason i'm asking is that i cannot for anything in the world imagine you being so upset about _anything_ but something that involves benchmark runs ;-) And what does SCHED_FIFO RT policy scheduling have to do with performance and benchmarks? Nothing usually in the real world, except for this little known fact: a common 'tuning' for TPC database benchmarks is to run all DB threads as SCHED_FIFO to squeeze the last 0.1% of performance out of the setup. So - and i'm taking an educated guess here - is SCHED_FIFO+TPC performance perhaps one of the factors that played a role in you initiating this thread? If yes then it's obviously an incredibly broken use of SCHED_FIFO and we can add the sysctl tuning to the long list of dozens of other tunings that happen before a TPC run anyway. Hm? 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/