Re: low latency versus sched O(1) - and versus preempt

=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Martin_Ma=E8ok?= (martin.macok@underground.cz)
Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:01:34 +0100

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 01:12:52PM +0100, Martin Mačok wrote:
> I have tested Andrew Morton's low latency patch versus Ingo's sched
> O(1) patch a bit:
>
> "O1" is 2.4.18-pre2 + sched-O1-2.4.17-G1
>
> "LL" is 2.4.18-pre3 + 2.4.17-low-latency + riel's 2.4.3ac4-largenice

"PS" is 2.4.18-pre3 + sched H6 + preempt

With PS I got somewhere in between O1 and LL, which means that desktop
performance under load with "nice -n +19 make bzimage" (audiovisual
xmms plugins, tuxracer, Q3A, mozilla) were best smooth with LL, and a
little worse with PS.

With "nice -n 0 make bzimage" desktop interactivity was best with PS,
a little worse with O1 and worst with LL.

If I get enough free time, I will test O1+preempt versus O1+mini-ll.
Something tells me that best results will be with O1+LL, because in LL
versus preempt, LL wins for me (interactivity, smoothness).

-- 
         Martin Mačok                 http://underground.cz/
   martin.macok@underground.cz        http://Xtrmntr.org/ORBman/
-
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/