* Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of my testing has been on desktop machines, although in most cases
> they were really loaded desktops which had load avg 10..100 from time
> to time, and none were low memory machines. Up to CFS v3 I thought
> nicksched was my winner, now CFSv3 looks better, by not having
> stumbles under stupid loads.
nice! I hope CFSv4 kept that good tradition too ;)
> I have not tested:
> 1 - server loads, nntp, smtp, etc
> 2 - low memory machines
> 3 - uniprocessor systems
>
> I think this should be done before drawing conclusions. Or if someone
> has tried this, perhaps they would report what they saw. People are
> talking about smoothness, but not how many pages per second come out
> of their overloaded web server.
i tested heavily swapping systems. (make -j50 workloads easily trigger
that) I also tested UP systems and a handful of SMP systems. I have also
tested massive_intr.c which i believe is an indicator of how fairly CPU
time is distributed between partly sleeping partly running server
threads. But i very much agree that diverse feedback is sought and
welcome, both from those who are happy with the current scheduler and
those who are unhappy about it.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
