BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 7, 2009 11:58 UTC (Mon) by yoshi314 (guest, #36190)
In reply to: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements by ikm
Parent article: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

"I'd add that Ingo's tests do look like they kinda miss the point. Coupled
with his 6000x4000 jpeg graphs, they leave a strange impression."

well, if HT quad-core is just his testbox, operating on huge jpeg files is
problably not an issue on his his real workstation.

to post comments

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 7, 2009 13:03 UTC (Mon) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] (1 responses)

Note, i fixed the jpegs - it was a silly mistake - sorry about that.

[ I did notice the image viewing suckiness on my dual-core laptop but blamed it on firefox ;-) ]

Anyway, i've fixed the jpegs and i've re-done and posted the measurements on a quad too in this lkml post, and the results are similar to the dual quad.

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 7, 2009 16:18 UTC (Mon) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

Note, i fixed the jpegs - it was a silly mistake - sorry about that.

Sure. However, your task now is to write at least twenty lines of "JPEGs are good for pictures. And nothing else. Really.", and remember to use PNGs next time. Thanks.

BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

Posted Sep 7, 2009 16:52 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

> well, if HT quad-core is just his testbox, operating on huge jpeg files is
> problably not an issue on his his real workstation.

Well, they weren't a problem on my 2-year-old mac laptop either (in Safari). I didn't actually notice that they were huge except that it was rather slow to download. Maybe Firefox's image rendering library needs some optimization work too. :)