Re: [2.6.16-rc6 patch] remove sleep_avg multiplier

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 23:47 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 March 2006 23:40, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 23:29 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 14 March 2006 23:24, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > Don't forget, every one of the exploits I test with were posted by
> > > > people who were experiencing scheduler problems in real life.  Try to
> > > > use your box while running those exploits, and then tell me that you
> > > > agree with interbench's assessment.
> > >
> > > Ok you feel interbench is an irrelevant benchmark for your test case and
> > > I'm not going to bother arguing since it doesn't claim to test every
> > > single situation.
> >
> > Yes.  Interbench's opinion is irrelevant to me wrt this problem.
> 
> Ok one last try to explain where I'm coming from and then I'll give up ...
> 
> Interbench's opinion is not irrelevant to me on this because it may help your 
> nfs case but interbench does tell me what happens with X, video, audio etc. 
> It's precisely because it quantifies those other scenarios that I care.

Sure, and I'm not trying to knock interbench.  I used it as yet another
test to my changes as I made them.  I just disagree with it's opinion.

(I didn't misunderstand the code either, I observed it in action,
interpreted the difference between reaction to stock, and reaction to my
changes, and then went straight to the long sleep logic and [tweak] made
the numbers identical to guarantee that I understood)

	-Mike