Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758864AbZIGD4O (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Sep 2009 23:56:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758813AbZIGD4N (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Sep 2009 23:56:13 -0400 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.25]:54831 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758809AbZIGD4N convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Sep 2009 23:56:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:50:16 +1000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eff67ef9f92dae4a Message-ID: <7574305f0909062050k4b0d4dd2pf9e71724caf8a189@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements From: Con Kolivas To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2201 Lines: 60 2009/9/7 Ingo Molnar : > hi Con, Sigh.. Well hello there. > > I've read your BFS announcement/FAQ with great interest: > >    http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt > I understand that BFS is still early code and that you are not > targeting BFS for mainline inclusion - but BFS is an interesting > and bold new approach, cutting a _lot_ of code out of > kernel/sched*.c, so it raised my curiosity and interest :-) Hard to keep a project under wraps and get an audience at the same time, it is. I do realise it was inevitable LKML would invade my personal space no matter how much I didn't want it to, but it would be rude of me to not respond. > In the announcement and on your webpage you have compared BFS to > the mainline scheduler in various workloads - showing various > improvements over it. I have tried and tested BFS and ran a set of > benchmarks - this mail contains the results and my (quick) > findings. /me sees Ingo run off to find the right combination of hardware and benchmark to prove his point. [snip lots of bullshit meaningless benchmarks showing how great cfs is and/or how bad bfs is, along with telling people they should use these artificial benchmarks to determine how good it is, demonstrating yet again why benchmarks fail the desktop] I'm not interested in a long protracted discussion about this since I'm too busy to live linux the way full time developers do, so I'll keep it short, and perhaps you'll understand my intent better if the FAQ wasn't clear enough. Do you know what a normal desktop PC looks like? No, a more realistic question based on what you chose to benchmark to prove your point would be: Do you know what normal people actually do on them? Feel free to treat the question as rhetorical. Regards, -ck /me checks on his distributed computing client's progress, fires up his next H264 encode, changes music tracks and prepares to have his arse whooped on quakelive. -- 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/