Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

[Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> Quoting Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>:
> 

> 
> 
> Thank you for your commentary which I agree with. With respect to these 
> potential issues I have always worked on a fix for where I thought real world 
> applications might cause these rather than try and fix it for just that program.
> It was actually the opposite reason that my patch prevented thud from working; 
> it is idle tasks that become suddenly cpu hogs that in the real world are 
> potential starvers,  and I made a useful fix for that issue. Thud just happened 
> to simulate those conditions and I only tested for it after I heard of thud. So 
> just a (hopefully reassuring) reminder; I'm not making an xmms interactivity 
> estimator, nor an X estimator, nor a "fix this exploit" one and so on.
> 


I have always assumed that things like X and xmms were just examples of 
the various sorts of things people would run when testing your scheduler.

But it was a mistaken assumption on my part that thud was an artificial 
work load.  The author of thud, I believe it was, explained to me how 
thud is a simulation of a real workload, reverse-engineered from 
real-world experience.

My apologies.