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

[David Miller]

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

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:33:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@xxxxxxx) 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?
--
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/