Hi Pantelis,
what is your primary goal?
Saving power? Improving interactivity? Be more cache-optimal?
I think recording the scheduling (without drastically slowing it down) is hard to do, since it ticks at least HZ times per second.
Replay such an recording (on a differeny platform) seems even harder to me. Since different cpus (and number of them), different speed and a very likely not reproduceable process-setup may noise completely the replay.
Do you also want to record/replay the behaviour of the more important loadbalancer, too?
Did you thought to compare different platforms by simply having syntetically generated loads? (I.e. see interbench -> http://users.on.net/~ckolivas/interbench/)
If you are interested in examing the scheduling-behaviour as a function of the tuneables (and even the HZ) - and if you are interested in getting better latency, maybe you are interested in nitro-patch for the scheduler? (I currently don't have an external patch-file, but you can get it integrated from https://github.com/baerwolf/linux-stephan/commits/v3.2.9-stephan-20120303000... )
Nitro enables you to do so some things, like:
* tune the scheduler at configuration point * increase the ticker-frequency way above 1000Hz * tune the ticker-freq. from userspace during runtime * change the scheduling-algo for idle-tasks
regards Stephan