Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754192AbZIHLgF (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:36:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754093AbZIHLgF (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:36:05 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:33166 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754087AbZIHLgE (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:36:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:35:54 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nikos Chantziaras Cc: Pekka Pietikainen , Michael Buesch , Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Felix Fietkau Subject: Re: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements Message-ID: <20090908113554.GA13630@elte.hu> References: <20090906205952.GA6516@elte.hu> <200909071716.57722.mb@bu3sch.de> <20090907182629.GA3484@elte.hu> <200909072051.13748.mb@bu3sch.de> <20090907205701.GA8590@elte.hu> <20090907232415.GA17182@ee.oulu.fi> <20090908080427.GA7070@elte.hu> <4AA6123F.7020704@arcor.de> <20090908101221.GA21533@elte.hu> <4AA634B0.3050302@arcor.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AA634B0.3050302@arcor.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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=3.2.5 -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: 990 Lines: 25 * Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > [...] That would mean that you (or anyone else with an interest of > tracking this down) would follow the examples given (by me and > others, like enabling desktop compositing, firing up mplayer with > a video and generally reproducing this using the quite detailed > steps I posted as a recipe). Could you follow up on Frederic's detailed tracing suggestions that would give us the source of the latency? ( Also, as per lkml etiquette, please try to keep the Cc: list intact when replying to emails. I missed your first reply that you un-Cc:-ed. ) A quick look at the latencytop output suggests a scheduling latency. Could you send me the kernel .config that you are using? 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/