Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:42 -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > well, there are several reports of CFS being significantly better than
> > > SD on a number of workloads - and i know of only two reports where SD
> > > was reported to be better than CFS: in Kasper's test (where i'd like to
> > > know what the "3D stuff" he uses is and take a good look at that
> > > workload), and another 3D report which was done against -v6. (And even
> > > in these two reports the 'smoothness advantage' was not dramatic. If you
> > > know of any other reports then please let me know!)
> >
> > I can tell you one thing, its not just me that has observed the
> > smoothness in 3d stuff, after i tried rsdl first i've had lots of people
> > try rsdl and subsequently sd because of the significant improvement in
> > smoothness, and they have all found the same results.
> >
> > The stuff i have tested with in particular is unreal tournament 2004 and
> > world of warcraft through wine, both running opengl, and consuming all
> > the cpu time it can get.
> 
> [snip more of sd smoother than cfs report]
> 
> WINE is an interesting workload as it does most of its work out of
> process to the 'wineserver', which then does more work out of process
> to the X server. So, it's three mutually interacting processes total,
> once one includes the original client (Unreal Tournament or World of
> Warcraft, in this case).
the wineserver process is using next to no cpu-time compared to the main
process..

> 
> Perhaps running one of the windows system performance apps (that can
> be freely downloaded) under WINE would give some hard numbers people
> could use to try to reproduce the report.
> 
> Ray
>