lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Within reason, it's not the number of clients that X has that causes its
>> CPU bandwidth use to sky rocket and cause problems. It's more to to
>> with what type of clients they are. Most GUIs (even ones that are
>> constantly updating visual data (e.g. gkrellm -- I can open quite a
>> large number of these without increasing X's CPU usage very much)) cause
>> very little load on the X server. The exceptions to this are the
>
>
> there is actually 2 and not just 1 "X server", and they are VERY VERY
> different in behavior.
>
> Case 1: Accelerated driver
>
> If X talks to a decent enough card it supports will with acceleration,
> it will be very rare for X itself to spend any kind of significant
> amount of CPU time, all the really heavy stuff is done in hardware, and
> asynchronously at that. A bit of batching will greatly improve system
> performance in this case.
>
> Case 2: Unaccelerated VESA
>
> Some drivers in X, especially the VESA and NV drivers (which are quite
> common, vesa is used on all hardware without a special driver nowadays),
> have no or not enough acceleration to matter for modern desktops. This
> means the CPU is doing all the heavy lifting, in the X program. In this
> case even a simple "move the window a bit" becomes quite a bit of a CPU
> hog already.

Mine's a:

SiS 661/741/760 PCI/AGP or 662/761Gx PCIE VGA Display adapter according
to X's display settings tool. Which category does that fall into?

It's not a special adapter and is just the one that came with the
motherboard. It doesn't use much CPU unless I grab a window and wiggle
it all over the screen or do something like "ls -lR /" in an xterm.

>
> The cases are fundamentally different in behavior, because in the first
> case, X hardly consumes the time it would get in any scheme, while in
> the second case X really is CPU bound and will happily consume any CPU
> time it can get.

Which still doesn't justify an elaborate "points" sharing scheme.
Whichever way you look at that that's just another way of giving X more
CPU bandwidth and there are simpler ways to give X more CPU if it needs
it. However, I think there's something seriously wrong if it needs the
-19 nice that I've heard mentioned. You might as well just run it as a
real time process.

Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-24 08:23    [W:0.112 / U:19.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site