On Monday 12 March 2007 22:08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> > The test scenario was one any desktop user might do with every
> > expectation responsiveness of the interactive application remain
> > intact. I understand the concepts here Con, and I'm not knocking your
> > scheduler. I find it to be a step forward on the one hand, but a step
> > backward on the other.
>
> ok, then that step backward needs to be fixed.
>
> > > We are getting good interactive response with a fair scheduler yet
> > > you seem intent on overloading it to find fault with it.
> >
> > I'm not trying to find fault, I'm TESTING AND REPORTING.  Was.
>
> Con, could you please take Mike's report of this regression seriously
> and address it? Thanks,

Sure. 

Mike the cpu is being proportioned out perfectly according to fairness as I 
mentioned in the prior email, yet X is getting the lower latency scheduling. 
I'm not sure within the bounds of fairness what more would you have happen to 
your liking with this test case?

-- 
-ck
-
unsubscribe notice
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/