Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for 
> > everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect.
> >
> > I had the feeling that SD matched that goal right now, [...]
> 
> curious, which are the reports where in your opinion CFS behaves worse 
> than vanilla?

see below :-)

> There were two audio skipping reports against CFS, the 
> most serious one got resolved and i hope the other one has been resolved 
> by the same fix as well. (i'm still waiting for feedback on that one)

your answer to your question above ;-)
Yes, we're all waiting for feedback. And I said I did not track the
versions involved, so it is possible that all previously encountered
regressions are fixed by now.

> > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...]
> 
> actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it might be 
> a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46?

In any case, it might be a good idea because Mike encountered a problem
that nobody could reproduce. It may come from hardware, scheduler design,
scheduler bug, or any other bug, but whatever the cause, it would be
interesting to conclude on it.

> 	Ingo

Willy