Re: [ck] Re: [REPORT] cfs-v6-rc2 vs sd-0.46 vs 2.6.21-rc7

2007-04-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > as a summary: i think your numbers demonstrate it nicely that the > > shorter 'timeslice length' that both CFS and SD utilizes does not have a > > measurable negative impact on your workload. To measure the total impact > > of 'timeslicing' you might w

Re: [ck] Re: [REPORT] cfs-v6-rc2 vs sd-0.46 vs 2.6.21-rc7

2007-04-26 Thread Michael Gerdau
> Very interesting indeed but fairly complicated as well. Sorry for that -- I've taken these figures from the 3MB logfile that each job creates and "reading" them on a regular basis tend to forget that probably everyody else does not find them as obvious as I do. Also I'm don't really have lots of

Re: [ck] Re: [REPORT] cfs-v6-rc2 vs sd-0.46 vs 2.6.21-rc7

2007-04-26 Thread Con Kolivas
On Thursday 26 April 2007 22:07, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Michael Gerdau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > find below a test comparing > > 2.6.21-rc7 (mainline) > > 2.6.21-rc7-sd046 > > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v6-rc2(*) (X @ nice 0) > > 2.6.21-rc7-cfs-v6-rc2(*) (X @ nice -10) > >