From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262317AbVGWDVG (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262324AbVGWDVF (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:05 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:43932 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262317AbVGWDVE (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version From: Lee Revell To: Alejandro Bonilla Cc: Blaisorblade , LKML , Andrian Bunk , "H. Peter Anvin" , torvalds@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <42E1A832.7010604@linuxwireless.org> References: <200507230244.11338.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <42E1986B.8070202@linuxwireless.org> <1122088160.6510.7.camel@mindpipe> <42E1A832.7010604@linuxwireless.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:02 -0400 Message-Id: <1122088863.6510.19.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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