Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
> > > well well :) nothing quite speaks out like graphs..
> > >
> > > http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=78.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Kasper Sandberg
> > 
> > Yeah, I sent this to Mike a bit ago.  Seems that .32 has basically tied 
> > it--and given the strict thread-ordering expectations of x264, you basically 
> > can't expect it to do any better, though I'm curious what's responsible for 
> > the gap in "veryslow", even with SCHED_BATCH enabled.
> > 
> > The most odd case is that of "ultrafast", in which CFS immediately ties BFS 
> > when we enable SCHED_BATCH.  We're doing some further testing to see exactly 

Thats kinda besides the point.

all these tunables and weirdness is _NEVER_ going to work for people.

now forgive me for being so blunt, but for a user, having to do
echo x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app
or
echo some_benchmark > x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app

just isnt usable, bfs matches, even exceeds cfs on all accounts, with
ZERO user tuning, so while cfs may be able to nearly match up with a ton
of application specific stuff, that just doesnt work for a normal user.

not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity,
something which cfs certainly cannot boast.

<snip>


> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/