Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0

[Heinz Diehl <htd@fancy-poultry.org>]

On 25.03.2012, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: 

> I'va always wondered what people are using to measure interactivity. Do we have
> some hard numbers from scheduler traces, or is it a "feels faster"?

I guess it's a "feels faster", because it's the only thing that
counts. Given that there is strong evidence that scheduler A is
"faster, more interactive", whatever... than scheduler B, but a
controlled trial shows a significantly better "feels faster"
experience using scheduler B, I'm quite shure that people would choose
scheduler B over A, and that's quite ok. It does what they expect it
to do, despite evidence which documents the opposite.
 

> And if  it's a subjective thing, how are people avoiding confirmation bias (where you
> decide it feels faster because it's the new kernel and *should* feel faster)?

Confirmation bias is one thing, and it does exist. Surely. So it's up
to the user if it wants evidence, or if it's enough that it feels
faster. I guess that evidence doesn't really matter for the most of
the users as long as they have a positive experience.

> Anybody doing blinded boots, where a random kernel old/new is booted and the
> user grades the performance without knowing which one was actually running?

Hey, we could construct a randomized controlled trial on this :-)
 
> And yes, this can be a real issue - anybody who's been a aysadmin for
> a while will have at least one story of scheduling an upgrade, scratching it
> at the last minute, and then having users complain about how the upgrade
> ruined performance and introduced bugs...

Yep. They who have to do "real work" will rather base it on evidence
than trust their own feelings.