Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version

[Con Kolivas]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:34 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
> > > scheduler related interactivity regressions.
> >
> > I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are
> > scheduler-related. They all tend to be disk IO issues (bad scheduling or
> > just plain bad drivers), and then sometimes just VM misbehaviour.
> >
> > People are looking at all these RT patches, when the thing is that most
> > nobody will ever be able to tell the difference between 10us and 1ms
> > latencies unless it causes a skip in audio.
>
> I agree re: the RT patches, but what makes Con's benchmark useful is
> that it also tests interactivity (measuring in msecs vs. usecs) with
> everything running SCHED_NORMAL, which is a much better approximation of
> a desktop load.  And the numbers do go well up into the range where
> people would notice, tens and hundreds of ms.

Indeed, and the purpose of the benchmark is to quantify something rather than 
leave it to subjective feeling. Fortunately if I was to quantify the current 
kernel's situation I would say everything is fine.

Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/