Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2007 21:01:53 +0100 | From | Miguel Figueiredo <> | Subject | Re: Sched - graphic smoothness under load - cfs-v13 sd-0.48 |
| |
Bill Davidsen wrote: > Miguel Figueiredo wrote: >> Ray Lee wrote: >>> On 5/20/07, Miguel Figueiredo <elmig@debianpt.org> wrote: >>>> As I tryied myself kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13, and 2.6.21-ck2 on >>>> the >>>> same machine i found *very* odd those numbers you posted, so i tested >>>> myself those kernels to see the numbers I get instead of talking about >>>> the usage of kernel xpto feels like. >>>> >>>> I did run glxgears with kernels 2.6.21, 2.6.21-cfs-v13 and 2.6.21-ck2 >>>> inside Debian's GNOME environment. The hardware is an AMD Sempron64 3.0 >>>> GHz, 1 GB RAM, Nvidia 6800XT. >>>> Average and standard deviation from the gathered data: >>>> >>>> * 2.6.21: average = 11251.1; stdev = 0.172 >>>> * 2.6.21-cfs-v13: average = 11242.8; stdev = 0.033 >>>> * 2.6.21-ck2: average = 11257.8; stdev = 0.067 >>>> >>>> Keep in mind those numbers don't mean anything we all know glxgears is >>>> not a benchmark, their purpose is only to be used as comparison under >>>> the same conditions. >>> >>> Uhm, then why are you trying to use them to compare against Bill's >>> numbers? You two have completely different hardware setups, and this >>> is a test that is dependent upon hardware. Stated differently, this is >>> a worthless comparison between your results and his as you are >>> changing multiple variables at the same time. (At minimum: the >>> scheduler, cpu, and video card.) >> >> The only thing i want to see it's the difference between the behaviour >> of the different schedulers on the same test setup. In my test -ck2 >> was a bit better, not 200% worse as in Bill's measurements. I don't >> compare absolute values on different test setups. >> > Since I didn't test ck2 I'm sure your numbers are unique, I only tested > the sd-0.48 patch set. I have the ck2 patch, just haven't tried it > yet... But since there are a lot of other things in it, I'm unsure how > it relates to what I was testing. >>> >>>> One odd thing i noticed, with 2.6.21-cfs-v13 the gnome's time applet in >>>> the bar skipped some minutes (e.g. 16:23 -> 16:25) several times. >>>> >>>> The data is available on: >>>> http://www.debianPT.org/~elmig/pool/kernel/20070520/ >>>> >>>> >>>> How did you get your data? I am affraid your data it's wrong, >>>> there's no >>>> such big difference between the schedulers... >>> >>> It doesn't look like you were running his glitch1 script which starts >>> several in glxgears parallel. Were you, or were you just running one? >> >> No i'm not, i'm running only one instance of glxgears inside the >> GNOME's environment. >> > If you test the same conditions as I did let me know your results. >
Hi Bill,
if i've understood correctly the script runs glxgears for 43 seconds and in that time generates random numbers in a random number of times (processes, fork and forget), is that it?
You find the data, for 2.6.21-{cfs-v13, ck2} in http://www.debianpt.org/~elmig/pool/kernel/20070522/
Here's the funny part...
Lets call:
a) to "random number of processes run while glxgears is running", gl_fairloops file
b) to "generated frames while running a burst of processes" aka "massive and uknown amount of operations in one process", gl_gears file
kernel 2.6.21-cfs-v13 2.6.21-ck2 a) 194464 254669 b) 54159 124
--
Com os melhores cumprimentos/Best regards,
Miguel Figueiredo http://www.DebianPT.org - 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/
| |