Re: [PATCH] O12.2int for interactivity

Voluspa
2003-08-03T21:17:56Z

On 2003-08-03 10:14:00 Con Kolivas wrote:

> Please note if you do test the interactivity it would be most valuable
> if you test Ingo's A3 patch first looking for improvements and
> problems compared to vanilla _first_, and then test my O12.2 patch on
> top of it. Hopefully there has been no regression and only
> improvement in going to Ingo's new infrastructure.

I can hardly spot any difference between 2.6.0-test2, A3 and A3-O12.2
while running the test as outlined in:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105956126017752&w=2

I'll never do such a three hours again... All was equally well, which
probably just means that my environment is too lightweight during
"normal" operation. So I had to focus on the taxing game scenario.

XFree86 Version 4.3.99.9 compiled against my glibc 2.2.4, and the same
story with winex 3.1 running "Baldurs Gate I":

_2.6.0-test2_

Animations have cyclic hacking like --- . --- . --- . (dots are pauses).
Ambient sound hacks in concert, with an almost oscillating quality.
Mouse pointer is impossible to place since movement can mean a few
pixels or a full screen. Panning the play area is, of course, a real
pain. Playability = 0 (on a scale from 0 to 10)

_2.6.0-test2-A3_

All problems gone. Just slight bumps (very short graphic pauses) when
doing a long play area panning. Sound is not perceptibly disturbed by
any graphic bumps. Playability = 9.

_2.6.0-test2-A3-O12.2_

Regression compared to plain A3, both in sound and animations. Mouse and
panning seem less regressed. For example, a character can take four
steps, freeze for half a second, take another four steps, freeze etc.
Playablility = 8.

I did the game-test two times with each A3 and A3-O12.2 (alternating
boots) and the results were persistent. Looking at a "top" terminal
while in the game, I couldn't spot any striking differences between the
numbers. Just one oddity - and now I'm uncertain of its validity - as
can be seen on the screencaps below. In A3 wine had a PRI of 25,
wineserver had 15. In A3-O12.2 the numbers were reversed. I can redo the
test if necessary.

( the niced process is foldingathome, always running on my system)

--A3--
20:15:01 up 23 min, 4 users, load average: 2.86, 3.09, 2.46
58 processes: 53 sleeping, 4 running, 0 zombie, 1 stopped
CPU states: 53.7% user 42.1% system 4.1% nice 0.0% iowait 0.0% idle
Mem: 127032k av, 123384k used, 3648k free, 0k shrd, 732k buff
86876k active, 28660k inactive
Swap: 489940k av, 0k used, 489940k free 49436k cached

PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND
209 loke 25 0 75316 46M 14284 R 56.6 37.2 10:40 0 wine
216 loke 15 0 2712 992 2388 S 34.4 0.7 5:42 0 wineserver
147 loke 34 19 33220 2388 24144 S N 4.3 1.8 2:02 0 FahCore_ca.ex
252 loke 16 0 1820 968 1664 R 1.7 0.7 0:01 0 top
172 root 16 0 27652 16M 13884 R 1.3 13.1 4:04 0 X
178 loke 15 0 5752 3428 5200 S 1.1 2.6 0:13 0 gkrellm
175 loke 15 0 8056 5936 4528 S 0.3 4.6 0:06 0 enlightenment
--

--A3-O12.2--
20:53:19 up 14 min, 4 users, load average: 3.57, 2.52, 1.27
58 processes: 52 sleeping, 5 running, 0 zombie, 1 stopped
CPU states: 60.3% user 36.5% system 3.1% nice 0.0% iowait 0.0% idle
Mem: 127032k av, 123672k used, 3360k free, 0k shrd, 640k buff
87996k active, 27860k inactive
Swap: 489940k av, 0k used, 489940k free 50664k cached

PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND
193 loke 15 0 66548 37M 14284 S 60.3 30.2 2:36 0 wine
200 loke 25 0 2704 984 2388 R 31.7 0.7 1:24 0 wineserver
150 loke 39 19 37248 10M 28172 S N 3.1 8.2 8:49 0 FahCore_ca.ex
220 loke 18 0 1820 968 1664 R 1.9 0.7 0:03 0 top
175 root 15 0 27492 16M 13872 S 1.3 13.0 0:31 0 X
181 loke 16 0 5752 3428 5200 S 0.9 2.6 0:03 0 gkrellm
178 loke 16 0 8232 6084 4520 S 0.3 4.7 0:03 0 enlightenment
--

Mvh
Mats Johannesson