From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932359AbXG3Wpt (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:45:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755433AbXG3WpY (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:45:24 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.236]:32551 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753589AbXG3WpU (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:45:20 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=KTe3s4+f1sW1QzjFmJIK/EIWwdPQz3bh8MO+GeYZER7MwvIICmfnWGrGzMVlMd83Em/9zHiNqu7PWEdgaHQGML+Zzcr9BIAzaDZBFXn5vUBXR+7rzpoRo/HWEkgUhZ9LFneLKp9i0uaKDUbfrZQOFqVleW7s7icwYYV1SgH4xak= Message-ID: <46AE69EE.1030402@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:45:02 -0400 From: Kenneth Prugh User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070729) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miguel Figueiredo CC: ck@vds.kolivas.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Kasper Sandberg , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1) References: <20070730191029.GA29327@elte.hu> <46AE570B.3050802@gmail.com> <200707302234.21860.elmig@debianpt.org> In-Reply-To: <200707302234.21860.elmig@debianpt.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5E4D7A25C39510F60BB51DA7" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5E4D7A25C39510F60BB51DA7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Miguel Figueiredo wrote: > Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu: >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Kenneth Prugh wrote: >>>> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> >>>> 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 m= ap >> 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 >=20 > can you apply the patch [1] that changes the behaviour of sched_yield o= n SD=20 > and report the results? >=20 > SD should scale a lot better after the patch. >=20 > 1 - http://bhhdoa.org.au/pipermail/ck/2007-July/008297.html >=20 I Applied the patch. SD Seemed a bit smoother over the loads, although that could be a placebo effect. It wasn't until the 8 or 9th loop running that I could really notice that the fps were fluctuating in the map without looking at the fps counter. SD-Patched UT2004 + 0 loops | 202 FPS UT2004 + 1 loops | 201 FPS UT2004 + 2 loops | 199 FPS UT2004 + 3 loops | 143 FPS UT2004 + 4 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 5 loops | 145 FPS UT2004 + 6 loops | 112 FPS UT2004 + 7 loops | 110 FPS UT2004 + 8 loops | 108 FPS UT2004 + 9 loops | 90 FPS UT2004 + 10 loops | 89 FPS --=20 Kenneth Prugh - Ken69267 Gentoo AMD64 Arch Tester --------------enig5E4D7A25C39510F60BB51DA7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGrmn90PM4px2/kjgRAmYPAJ4rublwCb/BMg6BTefqon+gc/5IWwCcDD9A a32+ciMLEk8A9QBiuPbyv44= =FWKP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5E4D7A25C39510F60BB51DA7--