Re: [REPORT] 2.6.21 vs. 2.6.21-sd046 vs. 2.6.21-CFSv7

Bill Davidsen
2007-05-02T15:10:37Z

Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 03:58:45PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Followup: I reran with sd-0.46, setting rr_interval to 40, and then 5
>> (default was 16). Neither appeared to give a useful video playback. I
>> did try setting the make to nice 10, and that made the playback
>> perfectly smooth, as well as response to skip forward and volume change
>> happening when the key was pressed instead of eventually.
>>
>> I also tried raising the nice of X to -10, that made things better on
>> display, but I winder if it will let X run ahead of the nice-0 raid threads.
>>
>> Is this my hardware or is there a really odd behavior here? The sd seems
>> to be too fair to cope well with this realistic load, and expecting
>> users to nice things is probably morally correct but unrealistic.
>>
>
> People have been reporting very good performance with regards to OpenGL
> applications under SD. What is your video driver ? NVidia proprietary ?
>
>
My original post I was following gave my config, built-in graphics using
945G framebuffer. This is a server, I'm not a gamer. The only fancy
graphics I have are on a system with no on board video at all, I picked
up a moderately high-end Radeon card to drop in. And to give you an idea
of what a gamer I am, that uses the vesafb driver ;-)
> OpenGL, X and direct frame buffer access (mplayer and friends) tend not
> to interact each other which can result in very different scheduling
> characteristics between them.
>

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979