On Thursday 26 April 2007 18:56, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Friday 27 April 2007 08:00, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> SD 0.46 1-2 FPS > > >>> cfs v5 nice -19 219-233 FPS > > >>> cfs v5 nice 0 1000-1996 > > >> > > >> cfs v5 nice -10 60-65 FPS > > > > > > the problem is, the glxgears portion of this test is an _inverse_ > > > testcase. > > > > > > The reason? glxgears on true 3D hardware will _not_ use X, it will > > > directly use the 3D driver of the kernel. So by renicing X to -19 you > > > give the xterms more chance to show stuff - the performance of the > > > glxgears will 'degrade' - but that is what you asked for: glxgears is > > > 'just another CPU hog' that competes with X, it's not a "true" X client. > > > > > > if you are after glxgears performance in this test then you'll get the > > > best performance out of this by renicing X to +19 or even SCHED_BATCH. > > > > Several points on this... > > > > First, I don't think this is accelerated in the way you mean, the > > machine is a test server, with motherboard video using the 945G video > > driver. Given the limitations of the support in that setup, I don't > > think it qualified as "true 3D hardware," although I guess I could try > > using the vesafb version as a test. > > > > The 2nd thing I note is that on FC6 this scheduler seems to confuse > > 'top' to some degree, since the glxgears is shown as taking 51% of the > > CPU (one core), while the state breakdown shows about 73% in idle, > > waitio, and int. image attached. > > top by itself certainly cannot be trusted to give true representation of the > cpu usage I'm afraid. It's not as convoluted as, say, trying to track memory > usage of an application, but top's resolution being tied to HZ accounting > makes it not reliable in that regard. > > > > After I upgrade the kernel and cfs to the absolute latest I'll repeat > > this, as well as test with vesafb, and my planned run under heavy load. > > I have a problem with your test case Bill. Its behaviour would depend on how > gpu bound vs cpu bound vs accelerated vs non-accelerated your graphics card > is. I get completely different results to those of the other testers given > the different hardware configuration and I don't think my results are > valuable. My problem with this testcase is - What would you define > as "perfect" behaviour for your test case? It seems far too arbitrary.
Con, One thing I did not mention in all this is that renicing the glxgears process to -10 gets SD to give about 1000FPS, indeed you get most of this performance at -5 too. All in all SD does a very good job here. Get well soon! Ed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/