From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752987AbXD2RKR (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:10:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750925AbXD2RKR (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:10:17 -0400 Received: from pfepa.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.235]:46170 "EHLO pfepa.post.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753729AbXD2RJo (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:09:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v6 From: Kasper Sandberg To: Ray Lee Cc: Ingo Molnar , Willy Tarreau , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Gene Heskett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Con Kolivas , Nick Piggin , Mike Galbraith , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Williams , Thomas Gleixner , caglar@pardus.org.tr, Mark Lord , Zach Carter , buddabrod In-Reply-To: <2c0942db0704290842j71a5d93cn10f7259559311642@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070425214704.GA32572@elte.hu> <200704261041.04838.gene.heskett@gmail.com> <1177618164.14496.5.camel@localhost> <20070427115344.GA30706@elte.hu> <20070427115526.GA7699@elte.hu> <1177774551.21279.8.camel@localhost> <1177809512.9756.10.camel@localhost> <20070429053022.GB23638@1wt.eu> <20070429065900.GB32281@elte.hu> <1177833575.9756.22.camel@localhost> <2c0942db0704290842j71a5d93cn10f7259559311642@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:09:27 +0200 Message-Id: <1177866567.9756.35.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 08:42 -0700, Ray Lee wrote: > On 4/29/07, Kasper Sandberg 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 >