[RFT][patch] Scheduling for HTT and not only

[Mike Meyer]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:50:39 -0400
Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:58:00 -0400
> > Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar at gmail.com> 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.

   <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>		http://www.mired.org/
Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.

O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org