Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I noticed a (harmless) bounds warning triggered by the reduction in 
> > size of array->bitmap.  Patchlet below.
> 
> I just checked my logs, and it appears my workload didn't trigger this 
> one Mike. [...]

yeah: this is a build-time warning and it needs a newer/smarter gcc to 
notice that provably redundant piece of code. It's a harmless thing - 
but nevertheless Mike's fix is a nice little micro-optimization as well: 
it always bothered me a bit that at 140 priority levels we were _just_ 
past the 128 bits boundary by 12 bits. Now on 64-bit boxes it's just two 
64-bit words to cover all 100 priority levels of RT tasks.

> [...]  And so far, v8 is working great here.  And that great is in my 
> best "Tony the Tiger" voice, stolen shamelessly from the breakfast 
> cereal tv commercial of 30+ years ago. :)

heh :-)

> Ingo asked for a 0-100 rating, where 0 is mainline as I recall it, and 
> 100 is the best of the breed.  I'll give this one a 100 till something 
> better shows up.

nice - and you arent even using any OpenGL games ;)

The 0-100 rating is really useful to me so that i can see the impact of 
regressions (if any) and it's also one single number representing the 
subjective impression - that way it's easier to keep tab of things.

btw., do you still renice kmail slightly, or does it now work out of box 
with default nice 0?

	Ingo