Con Kolivas wrote:
> Quoting Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>:
>
>
>
> Thank you for your commentary which I agree with. With respect to these
> potential issues I have always worked on a fix for where I thought real world
> applications might cause these rather than try and fix it for just that program.
> It was actually the opposite reason that my patch prevented thud from working;
> it is idle tasks that become suddenly cpu hogs that in the real world are
> potential starvers, and I made a useful fix for that issue. Thud just happened
> to simulate those conditions and I only tested for it after I heard of thud. So
> just a (hopefully reassuring) reminder; I'm not making an xmms interactivity
> estimator, nor an X estimator, nor a "fix this exploit" one and so on.
>
I have always assumed that things like X and xmms were just examples of
the various sorts of things people would run when testing your scheduler.
But it was a mistaken assumption on my part that thud was an artificial
work load. The author of thud, I believe it was, explained to me how
thud is a simulation of a real workload, reverse-engineered from
real-world experience.
My apologies.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:35 EST