From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754503AbXDTUrj (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:47:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754497AbXDTUrj (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:47:39 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:43797 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754503AbXDTUri (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:47:38 -0400 Message-ID: <462926DF.1030404@tmr.com> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:47:27 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Nick Piggin , Bill Huey , Mike Galbraith , Peter Williams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck list , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] References: <20070413202100.GA9957@elte.hu> <200704151327.13589.kernel@kolivas.org> <1176619384.6222.70.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <46240F98.3020800@bigpond.net.au> <1176776941.6222.21.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070417034050.GD25513@wotan.suse.de> <1176782489.13059.15.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070417041420.GF25513@wotan.suse.de> <20070417095140.GB22626@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070417095140.GB22626@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > ( Lets be cautious though: the jury is still out whether people actually > like this more than the current approach. While CFS feedback looks > promising after a whopping 3 days of it being released [ ;-) ], the > test coverage of all 'fairness centric' schedulers, even considering > years of availability is less than 1% i'm afraid, and that < 1% was > mostly self-selecting. ) > All of my testing has been on desktop machines, although in most cases they were really loaded desktops which had load avg 10..100 from time to time, and none were low memory machines. Up to CFS v3 I thought nicksched was my winner, now CFSv3 looks better, by not having stumbles under stupid loads. I have not tested: 1 - server loads, nntp, smtp, etc 2 - low memory machines 3 - uniprocessor systems I think this should be done before drawing conclusions. Or if someone has tried this, perhaps they would report what they saw. People are talking about smoothness, but not how many pages per second come out of their overloaded web server. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot