Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: x264 benchmarks BFS vs CFS | From | Kasper Sandberg <> | Date | Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:00:18 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jason Garrett-Glaser <darkshikari@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote: > > > well well :) nothing quite speaks out like graphs.. > > > > > > http://doom10.org/index.php?topic=78.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > Kasper Sandberg > > > > Yeah, I sent this to Mike a bit ago. Seems that .32 has basically tied > > it--and given the strict thread-ordering expectations of x264, you basically > > can't expect it to do any better, though I'm curious what's responsible for > > the gap in "veryslow", even with SCHED_BATCH enabled. > > > > The most odd case is that of "ultrafast", in which CFS immediately ties BFS > > when we enable SCHED_BATCH. We're doing some further testing to see exactly
Thats kinda besides the point.
all these tunables and weirdness is _NEVER_ going to work for people.
now forgive me for being so blunt, but for a user, having to do echo x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app or echo some_benchmark > x264 > /proc/cfs/gief_me_performance_on_app
just isnt usable, bfs matches, even exceeds cfs on all accounts, with ZERO user tuning, so while cfs may be able to nearly match up with a ton of application specific stuff, that just doesnt work for a normal user.
not to mention that bfs does this whilst not loosing interactivity, something which cfs certainly cannot boast.
<snip>
> Thanks, > > Ingo > -- > 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/
| |