Re: Ten percent test

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 20:51 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 04/08/2007 12:41 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > this is pretty hard to get right, and the most objective way to change 
> > it is to do it testcase-driven. FYI, interactivity tweaking has been 
> > gradual, the last bigger round of interactivity changes were done a year 
> > ago:
> > 
> >  commit 5ce74abe788a26698876e66b9c9ce7e7acc25413
> >  Author: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> >  Date:   Mon Apr 10 22:52:44 2006 -0700
> > 
> >      [PATCH] sched: fix interactive task starvation
> > 
> > (and a few smaller tweaks since then too.)
> > 
> > and that change from Mike responded to a testcase. Mike's latest changes 
> > (the ones you just tested) were mostly driven by actual testcases too, 
> > which measured long-term timeslice distribution fairness.
> 
> Ah yes, that one. Here's the next one in that series:
> 
> commit f1adad78dd2fc8edaa513e0bde92b4c64340245c
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>
> Date:   Sun May 21 18:54:09 2006 -0700
> 
>      Revert "[PATCH] sched: fix interactive task starvation"
> 
> It personally had me wonder if _anyone_ was testing this stuff...

Well of course not.  Making random untested changes, and reverting them
later is half the fun of kernel development.

	-Mike