Re: Ten percent test

Mike Galbraith
2007-04-09T04:23:58Z

On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 20:51 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 04/08/2007 12:41 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > this is pretty hard to get right, and the most objective way to change
> > it is to do it testcase-driven. FYI, interactivity tweaking has been
> > gradual, the last bigger round of interactivity changes were done a year
> > ago:
> >
> > commit 5ce74abe788a26698876e66b9c9ce7e7acc25413
> > Author: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> > Date: Mon Apr 10 22:52:44 2006 -0700
> >
> > [PATCH] sched: fix interactive task starvation
> >
> > (and a few smaller tweaks since then too.)
> >
> > and that change from Mike responded to a testcase. Mike's latest changes
> > (the ones you just tested) were mostly driven by actual testcases too,
> > which measured long-term timeslice distribution fairness.
>
> Ah yes, that one. Here's the next one in that series:
>
> commit f1adad78dd2fc8edaa513e0bde92b4c64340245c
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>
> Date: Sun May 21 18:54:09 2006 -0700
>
> Revert "[PATCH] sched: fix interactive task starvation"
>
> It personally had me wonder if _anyone_ was testing this stuff...

Well of course not. Making random untested changes, and reverting them
later is half the fun of kernel development.

-Mike