From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967846AbXG3TCV (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:02:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S967137AbXG3TCD (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:02:03 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:53761 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967113AbXG3TCB (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:02:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:01:47 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: david@lang.hm Cc: John , Kasper Sandberg , ck@vds.kolivas.org, Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1) Message-ID: <20070730190147.GC20901@elte.hu> References: <1185536610.502.8.camel@localhost> <20070729170641.GA26220@elte.hu> <930f95dc0707291154j102494d9m58f4cc452c7ff17c@mail.gmail.com> <20070729204716.GB1578@elte.hu> <930f95dc0707291431j4e50214di3c01cd44b5597502@mail.gmail.com> <20070730114649.GB19186@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: 1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: s X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 1.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * david@lang.hm wrote: > > Would you be interested in trying CFS and doing some numers perhaps? > > It requires some work: you have to start up your favorite game in a > > way that gives a reliable framerate number. (many games allow the > > display of FPS in-game) In Quake3 i simply started the game and did > > not move the player - that is something easy to reproduce. > > the one report that I saw said that the FPS numbers were overall the > same, but what the reporter was seeing was that CFS was doing it in > bursts of activity while SD was smoother. [...] which report is that, precisely? I'm not aware of any such report past CFS v14 or so. > IIRC Linus responded with thoughts on granularity and the fact that > changing from Hz 1000 to Hz 100 will increase the timeslices in CFS by > 10x (which could be enough to trigger this sort of issue) ah, you mean Kasper Sandberg's report? That turned out to be based on an older CFS version, not v2.6.23-rc1. Kasper said he'll redo his tests, and if there's still any regression left we'll fix it. Ingo