Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.

David Miller
2008-10-27T19:49:25Z

From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:39:34 +0300

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:33:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote:
> > The moment there's real IO it becomes harder to analyze but the same
> > basic behavior remains: the more unfair the IO scheduler, the "better"
> > dbench results we get.
>
> Right now there is no disk IO at all. Only quite usual network and
> process load.

I think the hope is that by saying there isn't a problem enough times,
it will become truth. :-)

More seriously, Ingo, what in the world do we need to do in order to get
you to start doing tbench runs and optimizing things (read as: fixing
the regression you added)?

I'm personally working on a test fibonacci heap implementation for
the fair sched code, and I already did all of the cost analysis all
the way back to the 2.6.22 pre-CFS days.

But I'm NOT a scheduler developer, so it isn't my responsibility to do
this crap for you. You added this regression, why do I have to get my
hands dirty in order for there to be some hope that these regressions
start to get fixed?