Message-ID: <4AA64052.4020509@arcor.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:30:26 +0300
From: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de>
Organization: Lucas Barks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090826 Thunderbird/3.0b3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tfjellstrom@shaw.ca
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> <h81v7t$p6e$1@ger.gmane.org> <200909071754.28675.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca>
In-Reply-To: <200909071754.28675.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1140
Lines: 26

On 09/08/2009 02:54 AM, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> On Sun September 6 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>  [...]
>> For reference, my system is:
>>
>> CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz)
>> Mainboard: Asus P5E (Intel X38 chipset)
>> RAM: 6GB (2+2+1+1) dual channel DDR2 800
>> GPU: RV770 (Radeon HD4870).
>>
>
> My Phenom 9550 (2.2Ghz) whips the pants off my Intel Q6600 (2.6Ghz). I and a
> friend of mine both get large amounts of stalling when doing a lot of IO. I
> haven't seen such horrible desktop interactivity since before the new
> schedulers and the -ck patchset came out for 2.4.x. Its a heck of a lot better
> on my AMD Phenom's, but some lag is noticeable these days, even when it wasn't
> a few kernel releases ago.

It seems someone tried BFS on quite slower hardware: Android.  According 
to the feedback, the device is much more responsive with BFS: 
http://twitter.com/cyanogen
--
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/