BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
Posted Sep 7, 2009 18:57 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333)In reply to: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements by mingo
Parent article: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
It'll end up being required desktop component since it's the only system developed so far that can handle hotplugging audio devices _and_ network audio in effective manner. This means on the fly audio configuration changes, which means that USB headsets for VoIP and gaming, bluetooth audio devices, and usb docking stations (etc etc) which are now increasingly common cannot be handled in a sane manner without PA's ability to do on the fly reconfiguration.
Then you'll need to do some graphical benchmarks. Maybe some of those things from Mesa or whatever. Their little things. Just stuff that runs for a few seconds at a time. Those phoronix folks have their benchmark suite and maybe that would be usefull for you guys.
The point for interactivity, as I see it, is adapting to changing workloads. Playing a mp3 + doing a kernel compile is fairly static and the system has time to adapt to it, and whatnot. The system should have a "peaky" workload with occasional high loads and whatnot.
Not that I experienced many problems with the modern kernel compiled with preemption enabled. At least nothing that stands out in my mind right now.
