Well, this settles it for me

Posted Sep 7, 2009 11:24 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
In reply to: Well, this settles it for me by bvdm
Parent article: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

If you can't stand the heat, why go back into the kitchen?

Con did not go back into the kitchen. He was explicitly avoiding LKML. Ingo tried to pull him in. And posting graphs as 6001x4201 JPG files shows extraordinary cluelessness. Every graphing program I've seen supports vector formats like EPS or PDF, and if he must use JPG, he can at least choose a size that fits on screen -- or does he use a 6000x4200 resolution monitor?

I'm running a Core 2 duo laptop with 4 GB RAM, and most of the time I don't suffer interactivity issues. But on lesser machines it is a big problem. If Ingo doesn't use such machines, he should be quiet. Con's problem was not "performance", it was interactivity, and Ingo's benchmarks are basically beside the point.

Jens Axboe posted other benchmarks that sound more reasonable as measures of interactivity (which is Con's concern, not "performance"), and he is not happy with CFS, but he was not able to boot the BFS kernel.

to post comments

Well, this settles it for me

Posted Sep 7, 2009 11:38 UTC (Mon) by bvdm (guest, #42755) [Link] (1 responses)

Con made a very public re-entry and raised many questions. Ignor had every right to respond. And he did so in a calm and admirable manner.

Your comments about the image size ares just ad hominem which I will ignore.

Have you read Ignor's email carefully or at all? He is clearly making the case that, whatever BFS's advantages on lower end machines may be (which he chose not to contest), CFS is still better suited for the mainline.

No-one is arguing that CFS is perfect, but I have a grave concern that Con is *again* pissing in the drinking well with his style of doing things.

Well, this settles it for me

Posted Sep 7, 2009 22:35 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Ignor had every right to respond. [...] Have you read Ignor's email carefully or at all?

No, it's pronounced "Aye gnor". (Sorry, couldn't resist after the second mention.)

Well, this settles it for me

Posted Sep 7, 2009 13:05 UTC (Mon) by aigarius (subscriber, #7329) [Link]

The images are 1024px wide now.

Well, this settles it for me

Posted Sep 9, 2009 11:27 UTC (Wed) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link]

Ingo has said that the graph size was a user error, apologized and replaced them. Calling him «extraordinary clueless» without knowing the facts is hostile and unmotivated. Mistakes happen.

I agree that Ingos choice of test machine and benchmarks is telling when it comes to what his priorities are - he gets paid to create software that runs well on big systems, 8 CPUs probably looks small to him. No malice or stupidity involved, just a different perspective.

I think the ball is firmly in the BFS camps court. Con won't and shouldn't deal with this, but any random BFS user with a bit of time could sit down and redo a set of benchmarks that _he_ feels is more relevant and use as a counterpoint. Maybe compiling vim on an Atom CPU as well as some measurements of dropped frames in mplayer while compiling? Latencies and stuttering may be hard to measure, but it is far from impossible. Something better than «it feels better when i shake my mouse» is needed.