Kolivas Pushes New Kernel Responsiveness Patches

[kraftman]

If one is better for desktop use, and the other for server use, maybe both should be? One that did best under both situations would be ideal though of course.

Who will judge which is better for desktop? For me it's definitely CFS.

[pejakm]

Who will judge which is better for desktop?

How about Phoronix Test Suite?

[kraftman]

if you can get timechart set up (part of the perf program), you can do

perf timechart record sleep 10
perf timechart

the first command will do a 10 second recording of the activity in your system
the second command will turn the recording into a svg image.

with that, it's maybe possible to figure out what is going on, assuming the actual stuttering can be captured (if it's very reproducable, it should be)

I thought this problem gone when I bought a new hard drive, but it's still present. I'm using 2.6.33 kernel from Ubuntu PPA. I caught some characteristic which doesn't look good (a lot of red on Plasma-desktop ;>). I will send you a link to svg file or maybe I should report it somewhere else? This is a screen shot if someone's interested:

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8334/latency.png

@Pejakm

How about Phoronix Test Suite?

If only some good tests will be used Last time BFS was faster at Phoronix, but at least one of the tests was meaningless - apache benchmark. If some problems with BFS are already solved and if someone will proof it's better on desktop then it will be nice to have them both in the mainline.

[apaige]

Seems to me that more often than not, his work is unusably buggy and makes things explode in MS like frequency.

[citation needed]

[some-guy]

How about Phoronix Test Suite?

Measuring Latency is not easy, benchmarks don't help here.

[arjan_intel]

If one is better for desktop use, and the other for server use, maybe both should be? One that did best under both situations would be ideal though of course.

BFS being better than the kernel is currently an assumption more than a hard fact.
BFS did show that the scheduler in 2.6.30 and early had issues, great, but 2.6.33 has a vastly improved scheduler... not so sure where BFS is better.. I haven't seen any kind of somewhat objective results.

[RealNC]

BFS being better than the kernel is currently an assumption more than a hard fact.
BFS did show that the scheduler in 2.6.30 and early had issues, great, but 2.6.33 has a vastly improved scheduler... not so sure where BFS is better.. I haven't seen any kind of somewhat objective results.

The improved behavior I get in my desktop and applications is all the proof I need I don't really care about the why and proving it to others. It works much better for me, and that's what I care about.

[arjan_intel]

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8334/latency.png

the png is not very detailed (yay zoomable svg) but it is really looking like you have the VM system working hard, and various things then turn IO bound.

It really does smell like a VM issue, but again, that's from a low res view..

[diebels]

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8334/latency.png


the png is not very detailed (yay zoomable svg) but it is really looking like you have the VM system working hard, and various things then turn IO bound.

It really does smell like a VM issue, but again, that's from a low res view..

If it's a VM issue, could adjustments in /proc/sys/vm make a difference?

[kraftman]

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8334/latency.png


the png is not very detailed (yay zoomable svg) but it is really looking like you have the VM system working hard, and various things then turn IO bound.

It really does smell like a VM issue, but again, that's from a low res view..

Thanks for your attention. I sent you link via PM to original image same time, but it's easy to miss it, because message notifications sucks a little at Phoronix