From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Alejandro Bonilla <abonilla@linuxwireless.org>
Cc: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1122088863.6510.19.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42E1A832.7010604@linuxwireless.org>
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 21:15 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> OK, I will, but I first of all need to learn how to tell if benchmarks
> are better or worse.
Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
scheduler related interactivity regressions. It certainly has confirmed
what we already knew re: SCHED_FIFO performance, if we extend that to
SCHED_OTHER which is a more interesting problem then there's serious
potential for improvement. AFAIK no one has posted any 2.4 vs 2.6
interbench results yet...
I suspect a lot of the boot time issue is due to userspace. But, it
should be trivial to benchmark this one, just use the TSC or whatever to
measure the time from first kernel entry to execing init().
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-23 3:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-23 0:44 Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version Blaisorblade
2005-07-23 0:50 ` David Lang
2005-07-23 0:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-07-23 1:07 ` Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-23 3:09 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-23 2:15 ` Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-23 3:21 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2005-07-23 2:34 ` Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-23 3:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-07-23 2:40 ` Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-23 3:34 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-23 9:05 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-23 16:45 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-23 5:34 ` Giving developers clue how many testers verifiedcertain " Al Boldi
2005-07-23 3:56 ` Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain " Adrian Bunk
2005-07-23 9:21 ` Jesper Krogh
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-22 1:34 Martin MOKREJŠ
2005-07-22 2:10 ` Mark Nipper
2005-07-22 2:38 ` Martin MOKREJŠ
2005-07-22 2:40 ` Alejandro Bonilla
2005-07-22 23:22 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-07-22 23:11 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-07-24 18:45 ` Martin MOKREJŠ
2005-07-24 18:54 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-07-24 19:10 ` Martin MOKREJŠ
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1122088863.6510.19.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=abonilla@linuxwireless.org \
--cc=blaisorblade@yahoo.it \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox