Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:28:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:28:26 -0400 Received: from 2-210.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br ([200.193.160.210]:54949 "EHLO 2-210.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:28:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:32:42 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: Ed Sweetman cc: Con Kolivas , Subject: Re: Benchmarks for performance patches (-ck) for 2.4.19 In-Reply-To: <3D72C6F9.6000302@wmich.edu> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2019 Lines: 53 On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Ed Sweetman wrote: > Wouldn't the majority (to an undeniable extent) of the "responsiveness" > of desktop usage be on X's code? if we are talking about that. The > problem with finding a benchmark is that first you have to have a > definition of what you're benchmarking. The "system responsiveness" > term is far too vague. When there's a definition to the term there can > be a benchmark made to measure it. Agreed. Things like system responsiveness are fairly complex though and in many cases the average numbers measured by benchmarks don't mean anything to users. I wish we had a way to measure this stuff, but I'll happily philosophise with you guys until we come up with a useful definition of something we could measure... > I mean, besides making the kernel with as low latency as possible, what > is bad about the responsiveness in the kernel? If there's any lag in > responsiveness that i see it's always something X related, particularly > Xfree86. "low latency" != responsiveness Any latency which is below the point the user can notice is effectively zero, so whether the 10000 wakeups/minute that the user doesn't notice are 2ms or 5ms don't really matter. What does matter are the wakeups that make the user's mp3 skip, even if these don't influence the statistics at all because there's only 1 every few minutes, or none, if the VM is balanced right ;) Another responsiveness thing is how fast you can swap in Mozilla when the user comes in in the morning. More of a throughput than a latency thing in this case ... but you still have to make sure the mp3 doesn't skip while mozilla is being loaded. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/