Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 11:54 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 12:00 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Fact is, it is working for a great number of people, the vast majority
> > of whom don't even know where the knobs are, much less what they do. 
> but not as great as it could be :)
> 
> > 
> > > 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
> > 
> > Theatrics noted.
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Seems you haven't done much benchmarking.  BFS has strengths as well as
> > weaknesses, all schedulers do.
> yeah, BFS just has more strengths and fewer weaknesses than CFS :)
> > 
> > > not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity,
> > > something which cfs certainly cannot boast.
> > 
> > Not true.  I sent Con hard evidence of a severe problem area wrt
> > interactivity, and hard numbers showing other places where BFS needs
> > some work.  But hey, if BFS blows your skirt up, use it and be happy.
> Theatrics noted.
> 
> As for your point, well.. as far as i have heard, all you've come up
> with is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS use cases which nobody is ever EVAR going
> to do, and thus irellevant

Goodbye troll.

*PLONK*