Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-02 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > do you have any filesystem that is not reiserfs? If yes, could you, as > a test, check whether file activities on _that_ file system still > cause these lags, or is the lag purely connected to the reiser3 > filesystem? i still have little debug info

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-02 Thread Ingo Molnar
Kasper, could you please try the "chew-max" latency-printing utility: http://people.redhat.com/mingo/cfs-scheduler/tools/chew-max.c if you start it on an idle system it prints a single line: $ ./chew-max pid 14506, prio 0, interval of 99984800 nsec and prints nothing else. It continu

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-02 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 13:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Almost all of the Reiser3 > > > code runs under the BKL, and the only other major kernel infrastructure > > > that has BKL dependencies is

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-02 Thread J. Bruce Fields
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:35:41PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Almost all of the Reiser3 > > code runs under the BKL, and the only other major kernel infrastructure > > that has BKL dependencies is the TTY code. > > Also NFS: > > $ grep -rIi l

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-02 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ah, indeed, that makes quite a bit of sense. Almost all of the > > Reiser3 code runs under the BKL, and the only other major kernel > > infrastructure that has BKL dependencies is the TTY code. Kasper, as > > a debugging matter, could you try to

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-02 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Almost all of the Reiser3 > > code runs under the BKL, and the only other major kernel infrastructure > > that has BKL dependencies is the TTY code. > > Also NFS: > > $ grep -rIi lock_kernel kernel-

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-01 Thread Lee Revell
On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Almost all of the Reiser3 > code runs under the BKL, and the only other major kernel infrastructure > that has BKL dependencies is the TTY code. Also NFS: $ grep -rIi lock_kernel kernel-source/linux-2.6.17/fs/nfs/ | wc -l 94 Lee - To unsubscri

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-08-01 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 10:57 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 01:46 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > > > > could perhaps be filesystem related, i have my maildir(extremely > > > large) on reiserfs, and /home on xfs. what my mail

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Matthew Hawkins
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Miguel Figueiredo
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Matthew Hawkins
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Matthew Hawkins
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Miguel Figueiredo
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Matthew Hawkins
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Alan Cox
> > oh, wonderful! Alan, you are a true wizard :-) The tty layer is one of > > the very few pieces of kernel code that scares the hell out of me :-) I'm not too fond of the way it does some stuff either especially the open v close v hangup paths but that is partly the fault of POSIX 8) > Maybe i

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Avi Kivity
Ingo Molnar wrote: For the tty layer I'm waiting for the revoke code to get finished up and move from -mm into Linus tree. At that point the real evil lock_kernel related stuff in the tty layer can switch to using the revoke code for hangup paths and then other bits can be tackled. oh,

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > code runs under the BKL, and the only other major kernel > > infrastructure that has BKL dependencies is the TTY code. Kasper, as > > a debugging > > And half the ioctls some of which trigger long code sections. the tty layer has relatively short BKL

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Alan Cox
> code runs under the BKL, and the only other major kernel infrastructure > that has BKL dependencies is the TTY code. Kasper, as a debugging And half the ioctls some of which trigger long code sections. For the tty layer I'm waiting for the revoke code to get finished up and move from -mm into

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 01:46 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > > > could perhaps be filesystem related, i have my maildir(extremely > > large) on reiserfs, and /home on xfs. what my mail client will do is > > download mail, spamasassin it(loading data

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-31 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 01:46 +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote: > could perhaps be filesystem related, i have my maildir(extremely large) > on reiserfs, and /home on xfs. what my mail client will do is download > mail, spamasassin it(loading database from home), then it will put to > imap server placing

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 19:06 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in > > smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s), > > world of warcraft via wine, unreal tourna

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Kenneth Prugh
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Miguel Figueiredo
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Kenneth Prugh
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Miguel Figueiredo
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 > >

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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. > >

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Ingo Molnar
* [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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread david
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Ingo Molnar
* [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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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 >

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Kenneth Prugh
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Arjan van de Ven
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. > > >

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Kyle Rose
> 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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Rashkae
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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. > > >

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
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. > > >

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Miguel Figueiredo
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Matthew Hawkins
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread david
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-30 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-29 Thread Matthew Hawkins
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

Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Kasper Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im still not so keen about this, Ingo never did get CFS to match SD in > smoothness for 3d applications, where my test subjects are quake(s), > world of warcraft via wine, unreal tournament 2004. [...] here's an update: checking whether Wine could

SD still better than CFS for 3d (was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

2007-07-27 Thread Kasper Sandberg
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 14:04 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, right on time, two weeks afetr 2.6.22, there's a 2.6.23-rc1 out there. > > And it has a *ton* of changes as usual for the merge window, way too much > for me to be able to post even just the shortlog or diffstat on the > mailing lis