From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 10 17:18:51 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744A0106564A; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:18:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mavbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCFC8FC08; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcjc3 with SMTP id jc3so26764bkc.13 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sfxBaRLiTNEGpdNHeefap/2DUvIvlLnDr1GFdM3chFg=; b=I4RcuaAM+kOlF68rSHIs7DO1YVtX9Hz4nqSWE0dGRfnGEqSVG8yDsR7Oo1HYS5KrJ3 CdZDi8tTEyJenuwhKPiUwiyRj/u1LrRnvvApWQh+OBJSo6wgSFSEgZzoeTpMnIBzVwJZ 17SrTW1LZTOLFwUrSANTwbvKXgWKrv3Q4eVrpPvzVfPpbIwKh5TvRoDKZ3qxx3lwWkoo WYNz5Pec8TB6MVCKoRHO3ZCVH+ZpQWX9qyWEXPnvbZrMGeYv2t+bF6VQCcLdrMvtsBvH CwSewb1got7r/2hcZP6b+0zRxJUx848EHSSiVqwFKWIf38nIo6CV5qzhWRrOLVjocAmI 074w== Received: by 10.205.130.12 with SMTP id hk12mr5201606bkc.76.1334078329126; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mavbook2.mavhome.dp.ua (pc.mavhome.dp.ua. [212.86.226.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id iv11sm33330488bkc.16.2012.04.10.10.18.45 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alexander Motin Message-ID: <4F846B74.9080504@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:18:44 +0300 From: Alexander Motin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120226 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnaud Lacombe 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson , Andriy Gapon , FreeBSD current Subject: Re: [RFT][patch] Scheduling for HTT and not only X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:18:51 -0000 On 04/10/12 19:58, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > 2012/4/9 Alexander Motin: >> [...] >> >> I have strong feeling that while this test may be interesting for profiling, >> it's own results in first place depend not from how fast scheduler is, but >> from the pipes capacity and other alike things. Can somebody hint me what >> except pipe capacity and context switch to unblocked receiver prevents >> sender from sending all data in batch and then receiver from receiving them >> all in batch? If different OSes have different policies there, I think >> results could be incomparable. >> > 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. Internal implementation's difference for > the task can not be waived as an excuse for result's comparability. Sure, numbers are always numbers, but the question is what are they showing? Understanding of the test results is even more important for purely synthetic tests like this. Especially when one test run gives 25 seconds, while another gives 50. This test is not completely clear to me and that is what I've told. -- Alexander Motin