From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932231AbXD2HbG (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:31:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932396AbXD2HbF (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:31:05 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:34181 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932231AbXD2HbD (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:31:03 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:30:30 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Kasper Sandberg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Gene Heskett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Con Kolivas , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Williams , Thomas Gleixner , caglar@pardus.org.tr, Mark Lord , Zach Carter , buddabrod Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6 Message-ID: <20070429073030.GA5253@elte.hu> References: <1177596399.14496.1.camel@localhost> <200704261041.04838.gene.heskett@gmail.com> <1177618164.14496.5.camel@localhost> <20070427115344.GA30706@elte.hu> <20070427115526.GA7699@elte.hu> <1177774551.21279.8.camel@localhost> <1177809512.9756.10.camel@localhost> <20070429053022.GB23638@1wt.eu> <20070429065900.GB32281@elte.hu> <20070429071627.GC23638@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070429071627.GC23638@1wt.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Willy Tarreau wrote: > > know of any other reports then please let me know!) > > There was Caglar Onur too but he said he will redo all the tests. > [...] well, Caglar said CFSv7 works as well as CFSv6 in his latest tests and that he'll redo all the tests to re-verify his original regression report :) > In fact, what I'd like to see in 2.6.22 is something better for > everybody and with *no* regression, even if it's not perfect. > > I had the feeling that SD matched that goal right now, [...] curious, which are the reports where in your opinion CFS behaves worse than vanilla? There were two audio skipping reports against CFS, the most serious one got resolved and i hope the other one has been resolved by the same fix as well. (i'm still waiting for feedback on that one) > [...] except for Mike who has not tested recent versions. [...] actually, dont discount Mark Lord's test results either. And it might be a good idea for Mike to re-test SD 0.46? Ingo