Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments
below. The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory
repopulation from swap would be most useful on system which have a
lot of memory pressure.
I
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments
below. The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory
repopulation from swap would be most useful on system which have a
lot of memory pressure.
I spent a few hours
Le mercredi 23 mai 2007 à 11:22 -0700, Ian Romanick a écrit :
> > I think some people forget that X11 has its own scheduler for graphics
> > operations.
>
> And in the direct-rendering case, this scheduler is not used for OpenGL.
> The client-side driver submits rendering commands directly to
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments below.
The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory repopulation
from swap would be most useful on system which have a lot of memory
pressure.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Hi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 07:23 +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
>> For me the huge difference you have for sd to the others increases the
>> likelyhood the glxgears benchmark does not measure scheduling of graphic
>> but something
Michael Gerdau wrote:
That's because the whole premise of your benchmark relies on a workload that
yield()s itself to the eyeballs on most graphic card combinations when using
glxgears. Your test remains a test of sched_yield in the presence of your
workloads rather than anything else. If
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 10:28, Bill Davidsen wrote:
kernel2.6.21-cfs-v132.6.21-ck2
a)194464254669
b)54159124
Everyone seems to like ck2, this makes it look as if the video display
would be really pretty unusable. While sd-0.48 does
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments below.
The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory repopulation
from swap would be most useful on system which have a lot of memory
pressure.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Hi Bill,
if i've
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:58:35AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 07:23 +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > For me the huge difference you have for sd to the others increases the
> > likelyhood the glxgears benchmark does not measure scheduling of graphic
> > but something else.
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 07:23 +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> For me the huge difference you have for sd to the others increases the
> likelyhood the glxgears benchmark does not measure scheduling of graphic
> but something else.
I think some people forget that X11 has its own scheduler for graphics
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 07:23 +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
For me the huge difference you have for sd to the others increases the
likelyhood the glxgears benchmark does not measure scheduling of graphic
but something else.
I think some people forget that X11 has its own scheduler for graphics
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:58:35AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 07:23 +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
For me the huge difference you have for sd to the others increases the
likelyhood the glxgears benchmark does not measure scheduling of graphic
but something else.
I
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments below.
The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory repopulation
from swap would be most useful on system which have a lot of memory
pressure.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Hi Bill,
if i've
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 10:28, Bill Davidsen wrote:
kernel2.6.21-cfs-v132.6.21-ck2
a)194464254669
b)54159124
Everyone seems to like ck2, this makes it look as if the video display
would be really pretty unusable. While sd-0.48 does
Michael Gerdau wrote:
That's because the whole premise of your benchmark relies on a workload that
yield()s itself to the eyeballs on most graphic card combinations when using
glxgears. Your test remains a test of sched_yield in the presence of your
workloads rather than anything else. If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 07:23 +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote:
For me the huge difference you have for sd to the others increases the
likelyhood the glxgears benchmark does not measure scheduling of graphic
but something else.
I
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments below.
The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory repopulation
from swap would be most useful on system which have a lot of memory
pressure.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Hi
Le mercredi 23 mai 2007 à 11:22 -0700, Ian Romanick a écrit :
I think some people forget that X11 has its own scheduler for graphics
operations.
And in the direct-rendering case, this scheduler is not used for OpenGL.
The client-side driver submits rendering commands directly to its
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments
below. The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory
repopulation from swap would be most useful on system which have a
lot of memory pressure.
I spent a few hours
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I was unable to reproduce the numbers Miguel generated, comments
below. The -ck2 patch seems to run nicely, although the memory
repopulation from swap would be most useful on system which have a
lot of memory pressure.
I
> That's because the whole premise of your benchmark relies on a workload that
> yield()s itself to the eyeballs on most graphic card combinations when using
> glxgears. Your test remains a test of sched_yield in the presence of your
> workloads rather than anything else. If people like ck2
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 10:28, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> kernel2.6.21-cfs-v132.6.21-ck2
>>> a)194464254669
>>> b)54159124
>> Everyone seems to like ck2, this makes it look as if the video display
>> would be really pretty unusable. While sd-0.48 does show an
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 10:28, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > kernel2.6.21-cfs-v132.6.21-ck2
> > a)194464254669
> > b)54159124
>
> Everyone seems to like ck2, this makes it look as if the video display
> would be really pretty unusable. While sd-0.48 does show an
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2
on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on
the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using
an HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In
any case it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the
processor time allocated to the compute
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using
an HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In
any case it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the
processor time allocated to the compute
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on
the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2
on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 10:28, Bill Davidsen wrote:
kernel2.6.21-cfs-v132.6.21-ck2
a)194464254669
b)54159124
Everyone seems to like ck2, this makes it look as if the video display
would be really pretty unusable. While sd-0.48 does show an occasional
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 10:28, Bill Davidsen wrote:
kernel2.6.21-cfs-v132.6.21-ck2
a)194464254669
b)54159124
Everyone seems to like ck2, this makes it look as if the video display
would be really pretty unusable. While sd-0.48 does show an occasional
video
That's because the whole premise of your benchmark relies on a workload that
yield()s itself to the eyeballs on most graphic card combinations when using
glxgears. Your test remains a test of sched_yield in the presence of your
workloads rather than anything else. If people like ck2 it's
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any
case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any
case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't look like you were running his glitch1 script which starts
> several in glxgears parallel. Were you, or were you just running one?
No i'm not, i'm running only one instance of glxgears inside the GNOME's
environment.
Then
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about
the usage
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about
the usage of kernel xpto
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time allocated to the compute bound processes which
On 5/19/07, Michael Gerdau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't want to say the values aren't useful. I simply think there is
> > a high noiselevel.
>
> The noise is reflected in the standard deviation he has on those rows.
> The average +- stdev of one overlaps the average +- stdev of the
>
> > I don't want to say the values aren't useful. I simply think there is
> > a high noiselevel.
>
> The noise is reflected in the standard deviation he has on those rows.
> The average +- stdev of one overlaps the average +- stdev of the
> other,
For the fairness test on cfs13 this simply is
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
> Is the S.D. columns (immediately after the average) standard
> deviation? If so, you may want to rename those 'stdev', as it's a
> little confusing to have S.D. stand for that and Staircase Deadline.
> Further, which standard
On 5/19/07, Michael Gerdau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, here's a bonus, http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_02.html
> not only has the right values, the labels are changed, and I included
> more data points from the fc6 recent kernel and the 2.6.21.1 kernel with
> the mainline
> Okay, here's a bonus, http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_02.html
> not only has the right values, the labels are changed, and I included
> more data points from the fc6 recent kernel and the 2.6.21.1 kernel with
> the mainline scheduler.
>
> The nice thing about this test and the IPC
Okay, here's a bonus, http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_02.html
not only has the right values, the labels are changed, and I included
more data points from the fc6 recent kernel and the 2.6.21.1 kernel with
the mainline scheduler.
The nice thing about this test and the IPC test I
On 5/19/07, Michael Gerdau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, here's a bonus, http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_02.html
not only has the right values, the labels are changed, and I included
more data points from the fc6 recent kernel and the 2.6.21.1 kernel with
the mainline scheduler.
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
Is the S.D. columns (immediately after the average) standard
deviation? If so, you may want to rename those 'stdev', as it's a
little confusing to have S.D. stand for that and Staircase Deadline.
Further, which standard
I don't want to say the values aren't useful. I simply think there is
a high noiselevel.
The noise is reflected in the standard deviation he has on those rows.
The average +- stdev of one overlaps the average +- stdev of the
other,
For the fairness test on cfs13 this simply is wrong.
On 5/19/07, Michael Gerdau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want to say the values aren't useful. I simply think there is
a high noiselevel.
The noise is reflected in the standard deviation he has on those rows.
The average +- stdev of one overlaps the average +- stdev of the
other,
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time allocated to the compute bound processes which
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about
the usage of kernel xpto
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on the
same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested
myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about
the usage
On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't look like you were running his glitch1 script which starts
several in glxgears parallel. Were you, or were you just running one?
No i'm not, i'm running only one instance of glxgears inside the GNOME's
environment.
Then not
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time
On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 22:36 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sat, 19 May 2007 16:02:37 -0400, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > The chart is at http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_01.html for
> > your viewing pleasure. The only "tuned" result was with sd, since what I
>
On 5/19/07, Diego Calleja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
El Sat, 19 May 2007 16:02:37 -0400, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> The chart is at http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_01.html for
> your viewing pleasure. The only "tuned" result was with sd, since what I
> observed was
El Sat, 19 May 2007 16:02:37 -0400, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> The chart is at http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_01.html for
> your viewing pleasure. The only "tuned" result was with sd, since what I
> observed was so bad using the default settings. If any scheduler
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time allocated to the compute
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time allocated to the compute bound processes which generate a lot of
other
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time allocated to the compute bound processes which generate a lot of
other
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time allocated to the compute
El Sat, 19 May 2007 16:02:37 -0400, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
The chart is at http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_01.html for
your viewing pleasure. The only tuned result was with sd, since what I
observed was so bad using the default settings. If any scheduler
On 5/19/07, Diego Calleja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Sat, 19 May 2007 16:02:37 -0400, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
The chart is at http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_01.html for
your viewing pleasure. The only tuned result was with sd, since what I
observed was so bad
On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 22:36 +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Sat, 19 May 2007 16:02:37 -0400, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
The chart is at http://www.tmr.com/~davidsen/sched_smooth_01.html for
your viewing pleasure. The only tuned result was with sd, since what I
observed
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/19/07, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I generated a table of results from the latest glitch1 script, using an
HTML postprocessor I not *quite* ready to foist on the word. In any case
it has some numbers for frames per second, fairness of the processor
time allocated
66 matches
Mail list logo
