Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:09:57 -0400 | From | gaxt <> | Subject | Re: WINE + Galciv + Con Kolivas's 011 patch to 2.6.0-test2 |
| |
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? >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |