Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 07:40:39 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
Message-ID: <20090907074039.1b6bc1ac@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <h81v7t$p6e$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu>
	<h81v7t$p6e$1@ger.gmane.org>
Organization: Intel
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 975
Lines: 21

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:38:36 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> wrote:

> On 09/06/2009 11:59 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >[...]
> > Also, i'd like to outline that i agree with the general goals
> > described by you in the BFS announcement - small desktop systems
> > matter more than large systems. We find it critically important
> > that the mainline Linux scheduler performs well on those systems
> > too - and if you (or anyone else) can reproduce suboptimal behavior
> > please let the scheduler folks know so that we can fix/improve it.
> 
> BFS improved behavior of many applications on my Intel Core 2 box in
> a way that can't be benchmarked.  Examples:

Have you tried to see if latencytop catches such latencies ?
--
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/