From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 04:05:22 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: kernel@kolivas.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
       efault@gmx.de
References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu>
In-reply-To: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200909070405.23936.elendil@planet.nl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 890
Lines: 23

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So the testbox i picked fits into the upper portion of what i
> consider a sane range of systems to tune for - and should still fit
> into BFS's design bracket as well according to your description:
> it's a dual quad core system with hyperthreading.

Ingo,

Nice that you've looked into this.

Would it be possible for you to run the same tests on e.g. a dual core 
and/or a UP system (or maybe just offline some CPUs?)? It would be very 
interesting to see whether BFS does better in the lower portion of the 
range, or if the differences you show between the two schedulers are 
consistent across the range.

Cheers,
FJP
--
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/