From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755233AbXFLKkt (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:40:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752501AbXFLKkm (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:40:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33404 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751572AbXFLKkl (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:40:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:40:32 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Con Kolivas Cc: ck@vds.kolivas.org, Tobias Gerschner , linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: call for more SD versus CFS comparisons (was: Re: [ck] Mainline plans) Message-ID: <20070612104032.GA8000@elte.hu> References: <466DE921.9030709@debianpt.org> <20070612083620.GA10557@elte.hu> <20070612085730.GA17964@elte.hu> <200706122033.32883.kernel@kolivas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706122033.32883.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) 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=3.0.3 -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 * Con Kolivas wrote: > So unless there's a vm issue (which does not appear to be the case) I > can't see how any of these will change Tobias' extensive testing > results. yep - i've retested with -ck2 and cannot reproduce his results. So i'm waiting for his feedback to see why this workload is behaving like that on his box and why not more like what other testers have found: http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-June/007817.html in any case, we'll figure this out :-) Ingo