Re: WINE + Galciv + Con Kolivas's 011 patch to 2.6.0-test2

[gaxt <gaxt@rogers.com>]

More notes.

galciv+wine even with hdparm -a is still too chuggy even within the 
game. Wineserver drops down to a 1-3% in game play but wine processes +x 
add up to 95 - 100% and slows things down. Using other windows in X 
takes long pauses. Not like vanilla 260 at all which was very smooth in 
the game and switching between apps.

gaxt wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:48, gaxt wrote:
>>
>>> I tried O11. Still chuggy in the AVIs and then locks out input into X. I
>>> switch to Alt-F1 console and hear the video advance, switch back, it
>>> pauses, switch to Alt-F1 etc. to get it through the video and then it's
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I moved my /home to another hard drive last night (same
>>> 7200 rpms) to get more space. It makes no difference to performance.
>>> 260-test2-vanilla was quite good and -mm1 and -O11 are chuggy and lock
>>> out input to X and require switching to virtual console to advance
>>> through the videos.
>>>
>>> If there is some other data I can provide you, let me know.
>>
>>
>>
>> What top shows as the PRI of all the important processes concerned 
>> during all this would be helpful.
>>
>> Con
> 
> 
> It's hard to grab top info as the interface freezes up. I'd have to ssh 
> in from another system.
> 
> However, browsing lkml, I noticed someone saying I/O throughput was 
> affected by a readahead setting of 256 instead of 512 using hdparm -a 
> ###. I changed the readahead on my root and home drives and galciv was 
> able to load (with some mild stuttering in the movies).
> 
> I've never adjusted this setting before. Perhaps it compensates for 
> scheduler activity by allowing the system to draw more data within a 
> given timeslice? Or am I babbling?
> 
> Running top while glaciv + wine is running with the new hdparm -a 512 
> setting, I can mention the following patterns:
> 
> When loading up playing AVIs, the top are wineserver, wine, wine, and X 
> (there is also another wine process). When the game chugs/pauses badly 
> in playing an avi, wineserver leaps to the top with >50% CPU with 
> wineserver+wine processes+x taking 100% CPU. Then when chugging lapses, 
> wineserver drops down to the 26% range and the other wine processes are 
> the same or a bit above. When the game is loaded, two wine processes at 
> 21% CPU each are at top, then X with 5-10% then wineserver with 2-3% (a 
> huge drop) or even a couple of appas above wineserver.
> 
> Perhaps this data helps?
>