On 8/1/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you tryied the 2 modes of the patch?
Here's my stats for sched_yield_ctl = 2
loops fps
0 48
1 48
2 48
3 48
4 39
5 39
6 39
7 28
8 28
9 22
10 18
Once again it was very je
* Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the newly-tested kernel (-ck+sched_yield_hack) it was 4-5 seconds
> for initial load, same as CFS normally does for me. I think the 8
> second one was because I got in quick and the system was still running
> some startup crap (so I blame dis
* Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this is what CFS does:
> >
> > static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p);
> > u64 now = __rq_clock(rq);
> >
> > /*
> >* Dequeue
Em Terça, 31 de Julho de 2007 16:57, Matthew Hawkins escreveu:
> On 7/31/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers) as
> > until 2.6.22 and -ck. Please try this hack [1] that makes -ck to behave
> > like CFS then you are
On 8/1/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only other thing of interest is that the -ck kernel had the WM
> > menus appear in about 3 seconds rather than 5-8 under the other two.
>
> under what load is that - 10 loops? There's no disk or network IO going
> on during a WM menu appeara
On 7/31/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers) as until
> 2.6.22 and -ck. Please try this hack [1] that makes -ck to behave like CFS
> then you are comparing apples to apples.
Hi Miguel,
I tested with sched_yield_ctl
* Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while
> > > SD broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated
> > > massiv
* Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers)
> as until 2.6.22 and -ck. [...]
as i pointed it out to you it does, the function's name changed:
/*
* sched_yield() support is very simple - we dequeue and enqueue
*/
st
Em Terça, 31 de Julho de 2007 14:16, Matthew Hawkins escreveu:
> On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD
> > > broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuate
On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD
> > broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated massively
> > around the third loop. Seems like I will stick to CFS f
* Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, Just got done with some testing of UT2004 between 2.6.23-rc1
> CFS and 2.6.22-ck1 SD. This series of tests was run by spawning in a
> map while not moving at all and always facing the same direction,
> while slowing increasing the number of
* kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to get kernel 2.6.22-ck and 2.6.23-rc1 work to test the new
> cfs scheduler, but I get broken system. Networking is totally broken
> (cannot find module for my marvell yukon gigabit ethernet in kconfig),
> firewall / routing doesn't work (a bunch
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
> Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
> >> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
>> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
>> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could gr
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 19:38, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> * Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > in mainline (2.6.22):
> > /**
> > * sys_sched_yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
> > *
> > * This function yields the current CPU by moving the calling thread
> >
* Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
>
> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it
> and try.
>
>
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ah, you mean Kasper Sandberg's report? That turned out to be based
> > on an older CFS version, not v2.6.23-rc1. Kasper said he'll redo his
> > tests, and if there's still any regression left we'll fix it.
>
> probably. I delete lkml messages
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would you be interested in trying CFS and doing some numers perhaps?
It requires some work: you have to start up your favorite game in a
way that gives a reliable framerate number. (many games allow the
disp
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would you be interested in trying CFS and doing some numers perhaps?
> > It requires some work: you have to start up your favorite game in a
> > way that gives a reliable framerate number. (many games allow the
> > display of FPS in-game) In Q
* Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in mainline (2.6.22):
> /**
> * sys_sched_yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
> *
> * This function yields the current CPU by moving the calling thread
> * to the expired array. If there are no other threads running on this
>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:25:47AM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
>
> The ATI drivers (current 8.39.4) were broken by
> commit e21ea246bce5bb93dd822de420172ec280aed492
> Author: Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Bad call on the "nobody was using these", Martin :(
Sorry to use foul langua
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my copy
of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have anything else
that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it and try.
The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should be using
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > >
> As for breaking binary crap, thats a bonus. Break them hard, break them
> often.
>
I think there's a big difference in philosophy between "break binary
drivers if you want to make a legitimate change for whatever reason" and
"break binary drivers just to be a pain in the ass to the developers
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
Do we care ? The code should be replaced with ptep_get_and_clear +
pte_modify anyway..
Since the general direction of this thread was for people to test 3D
game performance with the shiny new CFS cpu scheduler, I would say yes,
we do care if people with the only 2
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > >
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > >
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 12:46, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> * John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > * John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Ingo-
> > > >
> > > > Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
> > > > com
On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > http://files.myopera.com/kriko/files/nvidia-installer.log
> >
> > If
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo-
Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
compare numbers to wine? [...]
I regularly test native
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ingo-
> > >
> > > Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
> > > compare numbers to wine? [...]
> >
> > I regularly test native L
On 7/30/07, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that, I was just wondering if the FPS scales the same natively
> vs. Wine as I typically only run native games. I have been hesitant to move
> over to CFS due to reports of 3D issues and wanted to see if you had numbers
> in regards to CFS
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo-
>
> Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
> compare numbers to wine? [...]
I regularly test native Linux games on CFS, and they all behave well.
While waiting for more detailed data from Kasper i was looking for
atypical s
34 matches
Mail list logo
