From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 10 21:19:34 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AC1106566B for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:19:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81728FC08 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iahk25 with SMTP id k25so366007iah.13 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :organization:x-mailer:face:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=TlASYa5JOuKWI7FpFwyEZ25lJG4Qyz3Q/+ywQmVkuzU=; b=Q9sYC+bi8TONz2bmrxFzLX3J1jTTac4aKIH2hC4hH1Adifv7UAhCWlHxqRmDpA8QmD ddM4BTWCeByC+XGbaEo+Lp/Y895RGjLymwa1rxfcINjVu5jvBaX5Eipmj19oHfo/z6hk mSWo0PtygycgdIU9QCl2HGBHU1EbeyDrr+/2hejw43b6U+chYTqBBT/maP/Pg3zCSlw8 vwPyYJPCuqL2qIqh3dU2lTtl75/XXjrpmiwuFYaU9EQbW+bfDbX8R1jt6V3MJlqz+ccs LHaLrq27WTbpgkX8dm+clSShRpTyb9UeoNbG6HrWdYjT3WVPO2qU/c7qNDjgwB/K9rZr E5sg== Received: by 10.50.163.37 with SMTP id yf5mr235931igb.27.1334092773277; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bhuda.mired.org (74-140-201-117.dhcp.insightbb.com. [74.140.201.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p5sm21971898igl.2.2012.04.10.14.19.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:19:26 -0400 From: Mike Meyer To: Arnaud Lacombe Message-ID: <20120410171926.67ece307@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: References: <4F2F7B7F.40508@FreeBSD.org> <4F366E8F.9060207@FreeBSD.org> <4F367965.6000602@FreeBSD.org> <4F396B24.5090602@FreeBSD.org> <4F3978BC.6090608@FreeBSD.org> <4F3990EA.1080002@FreeBSD.org> <4F3C0BB9.6050101@FreeBSD.org> <4F3E807A.60103@FreeBSD.org> <4F3E8858.4000001@FreeBSD.org> <4F7DE863.6080607@FreeBSD.org> <4F833F3D.7070106@FreeBSD.org> <20120410160513.0b322f68@bhuda.mired.org> Organization: Meyer Consulting X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlx1KYF6fLr2gi0s3H8eMNL3KkDIeJ0X6BFiZoyArdCYTyCrwzkenIbipgZ+wLkhnFCM7Je Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFT][patch] Scheduling for HTT and not only X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:19:34 -0000 On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:50:39 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Mike Meyer wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:58:00 -0400 > > Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >> Let me disagree on your conclusion. If OS A does a task in X seconds, > >> and OS B does the same task in Y seconds, if Y > X, then OS B is just > >> not performing good enough. > > > > Others have pointed out one problem with this statement. Let me point > > out another: [elided] > You are discussing implementations in both case. If the implementation > is not good enough, let's improve it, but do not discard the numbers > on false claims. No, I was discussing goals. You need to know what the goals of the system are before you can declare that it's "just not performing good enough" simply because another system can perform the same task faster. That may well be true, and you can get the same performance without an adverse effect on other goals. But it may also be the case that you can't reach that higher performance goal for your task without unacceptable effects on more important goals which aren't shared by the OS that's outperforming yours. One set of numbers is merely an indication that there may be an issue that needs to be addressed. They shouldn't be discarded out of hand. But they shouldn't be used to justify changes until you've verified that the changes aren't having an adverse effect on more important goals. http://www.mired.org/ Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org