From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756051AbXGaJp4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:45:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753451AbXGaJps (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:45:48 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:53220 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752957AbXGaJpr (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:45:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:45:26 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Kenneth Prugh Cc: John , ck@vds.kolivas.org, Linus Torvalds , Kasper Sandberg , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1) Message-ID: <20070731094526.GA16300@elte.hu> References: <1185536610.502.8.camel@localhost> <20070729170641.GA26220@elte.hu> <930f95dc0707291154j102494d9m58f4cc452c7ff17c@mail.gmail.com> <20070729204716.GB1578@elte.hu> <930f95dc0707291431j4e50214di3c01cd44b5597502@mail.gmail.com> <20070730114649.GB19186@elte.hu> <46AE25F3.7020904@gmail.com> <20070730191029.GA29327@elte.hu> <46AE570B.3050802@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46AE570B.3050802@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Kenneth Prugh 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 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. Thanks Kenneth for the testing! I've created a graph out of your numbers: http://people.redhat.com/mingo/misc/cfs-sd-ut2004-perf.jpg (it also includes the SD numbers you got with the turn-yield-into-NOP hack applied.) Ingo