From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S968835AbXG3Ver (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:34:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S967980AbXG3Veg (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:34:36 -0400 Received: from cb2.northrockquote.com ([64.251.14.146]:1917 "EHLO dejavu.debianpt.org" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967671AbXG3Vee (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:34:34 -0400 From: Miguel Figueiredo Organization: DebianPT.org To: ck@vds.kolivas.org Subject: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:34:21 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Kenneth Prugh , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Kasper Sandberg , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20070730191029.GA29327@elte.hu> <46AE570B.3050802@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46AE570B.3050802@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707302234.21860.elmig@debianpt.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kenneth Prugh 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. > >> > >> The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should be using to > >> test the schedulers. I assume 2.6.23-rc1 for CFS, but what about SD? > > > > .22-ck1 includes it, so that should be fine: > > > > http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0707.1/0318.html > > > > Ingo > > 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 loops. > > 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 for gaming now. > > Below you will find the results of my test with the average number of FPS. > > CFS | SD > UT2004 + 0 loops | 200 FPS UT2004 + 0 loops | 190 FPS > UT2004 + 1 loops | 195 FPS UT2004 + 1 loops | 190 FPS > UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS > UT2004 + 3 loops | 189 FPS UT2004 + 3 loops | 136 FPS > UT2004 + 4 loops | 150 FPS UT2004 + 4 loops | 137 FPS > UT2004 + 5 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 5 loops | 136 FPS > UT2004 + 6 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 6 loops | 105 FPS > UT2004 + 7 loops | 118 FPS UT2004 + 7 loops | 104 FPS > UT2004 + 8 loops | 97 FPS UT2004 + 8 loops | 104 FPS > UT2004 + 9 loops | 94 FPS UT2004 + 9 loops | 89 FPS > UT2004 + 10 loops | 92 FPS UT2004 + 10 loops | 91 FPS can you apply the patch [1] that changes the behaviour of sched_yield on SD and report the results? SD should scale a lot better after the patch. 1 - http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-July/008297.html -- Com os melhores cumprimentos/Best regards, Miguel Figueiredo http://www.DebianPT.org