Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)

Kenneth Prugh
2007-07-30T21:24:45Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1826 bytes --]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Kenneth Prugh <ken69267@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> <large snip>
>> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
>> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
>> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it
>> and try.
>>
>> The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should be using to
>> test the schedulers. I assume 2.6.23-rc1 for CFS, but what about SD?
>
> .22-ck1 includes it, so that should be fine:
>
> http://ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0707.1/0318.html
>
> Ingo
>

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.

CFS | SD
UT2004 + 0 loops | 200 FPS UT2004 + 0 loops | 190 FPS
UT2004 + 1 loops | 195 FPS UT2004 + 1 loops | 190 FPS
UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS UT2004 + 2 loops | 190 FPS
UT2004 + 3 loops | 189 FPS UT2004 + 3 loops | 136 FPS
UT2004 + 4 loops | 150 FPS UT2004 + 4 loops | 137 FPS
UT2004 + 5 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 5 loops | 136 FPS
UT2004 + 6 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 6 loops | 105 FPS
UT2004 + 7 loops | 118 FPS UT2004 + 7 loops | 104 FPS
UT2004 + 8 loops | 97 FPS UT2004 + 8 loops | 104 FPS
UT2004 + 9 loops | 94 FPS UT2004 + 9 loops | 89 FPS
UT2004 + 10 loops | 92 FPS UT2004 + 10 loops | 91 FPS

--
Kenneth Prugh

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]