Re: Interesting scheduling times - NOT
Neil Conway (nconway.list@ukaea.org.uk)
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:17:44 +0000
Neil Conway wrote:
>
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > Just to put to rest the idea that maybe the median is covering things
> > up, here's the full set of data, note the small standard deviation:
> >
> > 2 7.58 (7.74 7.65 7.63 7.60 7.60 7.58 7.58 7.58 7.55 7.54 7.53)
> >
> > Here's the same thing with each run taking 500 milliseconds (so a total of
> > about 6 seconds of run time):
> >
> > 2 7.73 (8.38 8.14 8.13 8.00 7.94 7.73 7.62 7.60 7.46 7.33 7.04)
> >
>
> Just to scroll things back a few days here guys: (I just noticed this
> message in my backlog)
>
> Anybody else notice that Larry's results are monotonic on both sets of
> data ? The chances against monotonicity for each run are 2^9 to 1
> against.
OK, in fact that *probably* means that Larry sorted the data, so forget
my comments about monotonicity.
Next question though is why sort the data ? That's throwing away
possibly useful information...
Neil
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/