Re: [interbench numbers] Re: interactive task starvation

Mike Galbraith
2006-03-23T03:22:45Z

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 07:27 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 March 2006 23:14, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I was asked to do some interbench runs, with various throttle settings,
> > see below. I'll not attempt to interpret results, only present raw data
> > for others to examine.
> >
> > Tested throttling patches version is V24, because while I was compiling
> > 2.6.16-rc6-mm2 in preparation for comparison, I found I'd introduced an
> > SMP buglet in V23. Something good came from the added testing whether
> > the results are informative or not :)
>
> Thanks!
>
> I wonder why the results are affected even without any throttling settings but
> just patched in? Specifically I'm talking about deadlines met with video
> being sensitive to this. Were there any other config differences between the
> tests? Changing HZ would invalidate the results for example. Comments?

I wondered the same. The only difference then is the lower idle sleep
prio, tighter timeslice enforcement, and the SMP buglet fix for now <
p->timestamp due to SMP rounding. Configs are identical.

-Mike